Project Development Body Storming

https://vimeo.com/327880685

Body Storming Notes

Muncheng:
Approach the table,
Then I will take a seat
This is the menu
Supposed to observe setting
Menu beside Mat
Knife, fork
Plate and theres a container
Supposed to open this, it’s a mould
Tearing it, idk what’s inside, a bit confused and scared
“Silence is not consent”
I’m opening it
Not sure how it relates to “silence is consent”
Abit confusing
Don’t understand why there’s a mould or what’s inside
Maybe just cos there’s no sound, can’t just take it and pry it cos nobody tells me not to
What she’s supposed to do is clear but intention of gesture not clear

Jiaeenn:
Commentary on #metoo and consent
Consent being grey
Ball inside supposed to represent a peach
Setup relies on physical things
Peach will be clearer
Ties symbolically to how first dates are where women and predators meet
Act of opening it shows the intent

Refining:
instead of container: can be fine dining cover
Make it harder to lift up, more forceful/magnetic
Comments on the voice feedback:
A little bit on the nose
A repeated phrase like alarm for emphasis, something that’s being triggered
Currently it’s like a throwaway line
Atmosphere environmental sound effects of fine dining
Introduce context (maybe add guy’s voice talking to participant)

If there were a screen of a guy to converse with – abit awkward and participant is meant to be the perpetrator
Maybe add mannequin, no interaction but there’s context
Who is the participant? Victim or perpetrator? Perpetrator
Instead of having container there, can have it served to participant?

 

 

1. What did you learn from the process?

JE: Given that our installation circulated around a straightforward and simple gesture, our set up has to rely heavily on physical and visual cues to set the context. Giving more thought to the narrative of the space, such as the visuals, sounds and even smells should be considered so that the setting and premise is clearer to the participant.

YL:  I’ve learnt of the importance of contextualization and atmosphere. As a rough sketch, the feel and environment is lacking. This is made clear when participant tested it out and there was a slight sense of awkwardness in the process which is also partly contributed by the confusion of the participant.

2. What surprised you while going through the process?

JE: I placed a small double sided tape at the opening of the circular mould, and used tape to hold the mould together at the bottom. I expected the participant to merely pry the circular mould open like how one would with a durian. However, she tore open the tape (from the bottom) that was meant to act as a hinge for the circular mould. This reminds me that hidden elements will remain ignored while what can be seen acts as visual cues whether intended or not.

Also, the exercise went on longer than we expected as we expected the participant to stop after the auditory cue, “silence is not consent”. However, the participant continued picking at the set up which tells me that I have to think of a more intuitive closure to cue the end of the experience.

YL: The instructions interpreted wrongly by the participant. The object was meant to be pried open, but the participant removed the tapes that serves as hinges to open it instead. I think this brings out the issue of designing the object to be understandable and clear, as well as the need to test it on others as what they interpret may be widely different from our intention.

3. How can you apply what you have discovered to the designing of your installation?

JE:

  • To fit the setting of the fine dining restaurant, I will use a food cover and plate to replace the circular mould.

The rationale behind the circular mould is that the act of splitting the mould is similar to the act of separating a pair of legs, with the intent to access the private area. However, the symbolism behind struggling to open the mould stays the same as struggling to lift up the cover from the plate; they both underline the perpetrator’s intent and initiative.

  • To have the auditory recording, “silence is not consent” on loop, is too blatant and thus, making the interaction that much tasteless and tactless. I guess when it comes to interactive experiences like this, less is more, subtlety is key. This is so as the participant should be able to journey through the experience, contemplate and reflect before arriving at a conclusion. Thus to have the phrase, “silence is not consent” so blatantly announced, it takes the epiphany away from the participant. I use a change in environment to deliver the message by stopping the ambient visual and auditory setting of the restaurant and screen the phrase instead. This is also a more dramatic ending as the participant is left with nothing but a cross section of a peach and the phrase straring back at him/her, amidst the silence..

YL:  The way we present our object in its environment is as important as the object itself. Our installation relies more on visual elements and context to bring out the appropriate emotion we want our participants to go through. As such, we may include elements of unsettledness for the participants such as a change in atmosphere, example from lively restaurant to a silent one with the use of background sound.

MICRO-PROJECT 4 – DISOBEDIENT OBJECTS (JIAEENN & YENLING)

Brainstorming

  1. Pen that vibrates and buzz annoyingly when being held
  2. Bra that refuses to unhook or clasp
  3. Toilet paper dispenser that wouldn’t dispense toilet paper in times of need

Sketches

Settled on idea 3 as it’s a good stepping stone to experimenting with before attempting more complex and larger applications.

Click on image to enlarge

Final Prototype

gag poster

1. How does your hacked object behave in a way you least expect it to?

Jia Eenn: A toilet paper dispenser dispenses toilet paper at the convenience of the user.  It meets the demand and expectation of the user to be available when needed. However, our hacked object retracts the toilet roll when the user approaches it and dispenses when user doesn’t, thereby teasing the user and taking away her access to toilet paper.

 

Yen Ling: Reaching out for toilet paper is a natural action every one of us does everyday that it forms a kind of expectation. However, our hacked object goes against that expectation to create the unexpected which is to make the toilet paper out of reach.

2. What are some reactions you observed from your participants when they interacted with the object?

Jia Eenn: Our first participant was tricked when she initially approached the dispenser, only to realise that the dispenser retracts the paper when she approaches it and dispenses when she doesn’t. However, our second and third participants very soon realised that the photocell was only at the top of the slit, hence an underhand wouldn’t trigger the servo motor, allowing them to access the toilet paper. In general, most felt that this was a comical lighthearted tease on toilet paper dispenser.

 

Yen Ling: There were confusion and slightly surprised, which may be due to the suddenness of the action, as well as the action itself. However, they seem to understand the concept quickly after the initial shock.

3. What are the challenges involved and how did you overcome them? What problems still exist? How might you overcome them eventually?

Jia Eenn: Brainstorming wasn’t much of an issue given that the project is pretty straightforward. Identify the mechanism of an object and tweak the process such that the object becomes defiant and disobedient.

Coming up with the code however, was a slight feat. We could easily figure out a code to make the servo motor respond to the photocell however, the motor only vibrated in response instead of rotating. After consulting Lei, we figured out a code that worked.

Later, we drafted the set up of the prototype and worked on putting it together. We had issues in ensuring that the weight of the toilet roll doesn’t detach the blades from the servo motor. Little did we know that we could screw the blades in place.

Even though the hacked object remains hackable (underhand method), this could possibly be overcome with installing more photocells to detach incoming movement from all angles. Dispensing the paper from the underbelly of the box could also be another way to ensure that users can only reach for the toilet roll within the detectable region.

Yen Ling: The initial code does not allow the motor to stop at a position but instead resets itself once it reaches a set position. It only occurred to me after but it might be due to the power supply. We did not manage to solve the problem with the codes, hence we compromised and wrote the codes in a different way. Another challenge may be the execution of the product. The toilet paper holder is not meant to be fixed to the wall, but the opening for the toilet paper had to be at the bottom. This makes the set up hard to be secured due to the weight of the servo motor and toilet roll which is on the top. The toilet roll would also have to be attached directly to the servo motor (or an extension from the motor) in order to rotate with the motor. Eventually, I added support from the other side, but the problem still exists. This problem can be overcome by screwing in the servo motor blade which was something I did not know at that time as well as better attachment of the motor to the wall of the box.

Code

Testing of light input

 

Assignment 2B – Thinking through Making

(click on any image to for enlarged picture 🙂 )

PART 1: Designing through Details

4 prototypes that convey verbs; cradle and lift.

Cradle Prototype 1, 2, 3

Lift Prototype 4

PART 2: Thinking through making

Borrowing the fanning out motion of prototype 3, I found that a collapsible dome-like structure seems promising.

Idea 1: Collapsible bike helmet; aborted idea as similar products are already present in the market.

 

Idea 2: Customisable backpack/ tote bag that utilises the collapsible dome structure; pursued this idea as there was more to explore.

Prototype (made out of card paper)

 

Final sketch of product

 

 

Challenges faced

 

Final Prototype

 

Orthographic Drawings

 

Assignment 2A – Weave object & Weave Technique studies

2D Final Weave

22 x 20cm weave pattern (click on image for enlarged picture)

2D PROCESS

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.

 

3D final weAVE

 (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)

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 & Open–Source? 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.

Micro-Project 2 – Crowd-Sourced Art

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

This is a continuous narrative told by various random individuals who contributed to the storytelling by writing one sentence each; in other words, this is a form of open-source storytelling.

Just like an open-source software, like Gimp, this form of storytelling acted as a space for individuals to craft and dictate how a narrative unfolds. However, a scaffold had to be first set in place in the form of instructions and the first sentence which suggests the setting. Participants contribute to the narrative by continuing the story with a sentence. Hence, although the work was first created by Gwen and I, the essence of the work was created through the collaborative efforts of the public, giving the public due ownership.

Where does this work take place?

This work takes place online, on a Google document. Since this was a Google document that was made public, anyone on the internet could access the document, regardless of their possession of a Google account.

How does this work involve social interaction?

The work involves social interaction between individuals online. With a semblance of continuity in the narrative, participants had to collaborate or at the very least, consider the content of the previous participants so as to keep up with the storyline.

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

This crowd-sourced project is different than if it were created solely by one artist as it took on many turns and turned out nothing like what Gwen and I (the initial creators) had thought it would. Since it was open to the discretion of the individuals to dictate the narrative, their idiosyncratic thought pattern, humour and decision making were all part of the process of crafting the next sentence.

I noticed this especially when one participant assumably, from business (she was sporting the business faculty shirt) seemed to have struggled to continue the narrative as the storyline got absurd at that point. She broke the fantasy chain and wrote that “Imagination isn’t real” instead. This was a stark difference from the whimsical and ridiculous sentences that came before and after, mostly written by ADM students. This reminds me that an interaction piece, if received by a wide array of individuals, would render differing perspectives and responses. This reflects also, the social behaviours of different strata of people or personalities.

The story also took on a very bold leap after Shrek appeared which embolden the rest to add on the incongruity and silliness of the narrative. This instance of herd mentality reveals to me that an interaction piece could strive to push beyond the social boundaries or to break social codes, so as to deeply engage my audience with my art.

Assignment 1: Axonometric Drawing – Castle on the hill

With the task of creating a structure out of a minimum of 15 pieces, I came up with a castle-like composition when I saw the door lego piece.

Since the lecturer often made references to lego instruction manuals during class, I took inspiration from vintage instruction manuals for kids and came up with a counterfeit brand,  “YAGO”.

Click on image for full-sized image.

Isometric Drawings of lego pieces

Process of digital rendering

Creating the Third Place

1. Why did you choose this space or object to photograph?

The central exit was my selected space as it represents the threshold between work and play for me. I’m usually only within the physical construct of the ADM faculty because of mandatory appointments like class or project meetings. Thus, being in school is somewhat dreadful since it meant that work has to be done. However, beyond this threshold, work becomes an option and I’m allowed to play and or relax. As cliché and stupid as it sounds, I feel more liberated when I interact with that space/threshold and push through those doors.

                            

2. What are some of the characteristics of this alternative virtual space you had created collectively?

It is a public space where the individual can contribute and interact with other contributors to give a host of perspectives about a specific topic, in this case, about a space, also known as ADM.

Due to the multitudes of sentiments conveyed about this physical space, #1010ADM can transcend its simple physical presence and is now personified online, in which specific places now carry their idiosyncratic features. For instance, as much as points of exits (doors and stairways) exists physically as a barrier between physical spaces, they are also synonymous with the notion of a gateway to another mind space – respite.

3. Under what circumstance will this alternative virtual space change?

This virtual space may change when contributors remove their content from #1010ADM, this is destructive as it creates a deficit to the online persona of ADM. In the event that everyone removes their posts, ADM then ceases to exist beyond its physical concrete walls and is void of attachments or sentiments.

4. How does this project relate to what we discussed in the lecture regarding co-creation, the concept of Do-It-Yourself (DIY), Do-It-With-Others (DIWO)?

This is almost similar to DIWO, only that sentiments are shared instead of ideas. This could also be a microcosm of the mechanics of DIWO and its benefits. #10101ADM could exist as an online persona of ADM only because its contributors had the incentive and stake to share. This made their contributions genuine and thoughtful. In the same sense, perhaps DIWO can only work if its contributors are equally invested.