Micro-Project 3 – Together Split

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

Which project did you feel you had the most creative control? Why?

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.

Which project had the most unpredictable outcome? Why?

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.

Which project best illustrates the concepts of DIWO & OpenSource? Why?

The second project best illustrates and imitates the mechanisms of DIWO and Open-Source.

DIWO and Open-source

  1. had public and open access,
  2. involved the participation and interaction of other like-minded individuals,
  3. and thus, resulted in works that were publically owned.

In comparison, our second project was the closest to the makings of a DIWO or Open-source project as,

  1. This open-source storytelling was facilitated on Google Documents which is a platform that any individual (with the access to internet and knowledge of this participatory exercise) could access.
  2. The narrative was pieced together and built off on each other, sentence by sentence, by different individuals.
  3. Thus, it is owned by the public since it was a collaborative effort of the public. And that the creators built it for the use/(amusement) of the public, and has been relinquished their ownership. However, to some extent, it is only a public work to some extent, as Gwen and I still had the autonomy and ability to take down the Google document, thus forbidding the public from accessing it thereby making it a private ownership again.

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.