Object Studies: Spectacles
Front
Right
2-point perspective
Orthographic drawings (scale 1:1 as object is relatively small)
Front
Right
Top
2-point perspective
22 x 20cm weave pattern (click on image for enlarged picture)
Tried other methods of weaving, hexagonal pattern, but found the rattan to be too thick.
Threading the rattan through the vertical rattan, alternating between the top and bottom rattans.
Tools used; scissors and ruler. Measured the rattan and cut them into even pieces before proceeding with weaving.
(Click on image for enlarged version)
3D PROCESS
The entire 3D form had been built based on a frame of 6 x 6 strands. Placed to form a rectangle, we then started weaving from the middle out, using the mat pattern.
While we had initially attempted the hexagonal pattern, the rattan had been far too thick and the pattern thus did not show through since it could not form clean tight triangles.
The base of the 3D structure was completed to become about a 27 x 20 cm piece. The sides were continued by using long pieces to weave circles around the 24 standing strands.
Initially, it had been extremely difficult to weave. However, after soaking the rattan in water, it became softer and thus was easier to weave.
Base
Skeleton
Combine the base and surrounding panel by weaving through the tall vertical rattan
Adding the second layer of rattan of a different material. Trying out the weave pattern with other mediums
Group members: Tay Jia Eenn and Tjoa Wei Lin. (Click on link to access her oss page)
The narrative follows a group of girls who was kidnapped and held hostage in a building, at which they were in close proximity to each other. The girls realise soon that they were next to each other (as per the visual layout of the video call) and were struggling to escape. However, all these efforts were futile as the kidnapper got to them before any of them could escape.
This narrative was performed in different parts of the school. It was also a short experimentation with virtual space by making use of the four segments of IG video call. I wanted to indulge in a narrative that makes use of the visual space (4 segments) instead of trying to break the virtual wall between the spaces with physical interaction (ie. passing things back and forth)
We spent quite a bit of time coming up with an elaborate script (attached below) which even included hand gestures. However, upon execution, we realised that the orientation of our screen differed from each other (ie. I could appear in the 3rd quadrant on my screen but 1st in another caller’s screen). Also, the time limit made the script difficult to execute as well. Thus we decided to ditch the script and to just interact with all four walls of our quadrants.
Other issues like connectivity and phone memory space would also interrupt our recording and execution, making it difficult to record. For instance, members of the group would drop out of the call when the connectivity is lost. This shuffles the orientation and layout of callers on all of our screens, which meant that we had to delegate the job of filming the video again. Other external interruptions such as phone notifications also made the visual “stage” seem fake, breaking the flow of the storytelling.
Here’s a link to our final video; https://vimeo.com/315602269
Out of the 3 micro projects, I felt that I had the most creative control over the first one as it was an individual project, thus giving me full autonomy over the brainstorm and execution process. Moreover, the project was the most reflective and personal in nature, thus placing lesser restraints in my response.
The second project, our open-source storytelling, was the most unpredictable as the nature of the work was interactive and participatory. Also, Gwen and I intentionally created a space that placed the least restraints on our participants. As a result, this led to the outcome in which our participants had complete creative control and freedom.
The second project best illustrates and imitates the mechanisms of DIWO and Open-Source.
DIWO and Open-source
In comparison, our second project was the closest to the makings of a DIWO or Open-source project as,
The 1st project had the least similarities to DIWO or Open-source while the 3rd project was only a collaborative effort amongst the creators which exhibited the mechanics of DIWO. However, it failed to be an Open-source project as it was opened up to the public and did not involve the participation of the public.