spamcan

March 21, 2019March 21, 2019

Micro-Project 4 – Disobedient Objects

Pick up the trash.

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

Man Wei: We made a dollar note on the floor that doesn’t allow people to pick it up (and pocket it). The note moves in a way that the inanimate object acquires a sort of naughty character playing tag with/ teasing people like a mouse-and-cat /torchlight-and-cat scenario. It is purposely placed alongside trash and positioned on the ground. The disobedient note is meant to discipline/remind people to pick up trash they see on the floor; it contrasts the apathy and lack of initiative taken to pick up common litter, with the attention given to money when it is the object on the floor instead.

Ayesha: Our hacked object is a 2 dollar note placed among trash, next to a sign that that asks to bin your litter. When you reach to pick the money up, a light sensor in front of it is triggered and the note, attached to a wire and connected to a servo-motor, moves the note out of the way. The movement is very fast and the note returns back to its original position when the participant retracts their hand. It acts a bit like bait to bring attention to the litter around it that we would normally overlook and wouldn’t think to pick up, unlike money on the ground.

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

Man Wei: Intuitively they bent down to reach for the note. Movements were hesitant at first when they did not know what to expect but as the note swept across the floor from side to side, it looked like some of them got taunted/challenged to grab the note (completely possible to do). They found it fun to interact with; some said it was almost like a toy and some approached to play with it after our presentation was over. It made me happy that the game-like set-up of our installation was able to attract and sustain our participants’ interest—necessary for any reflection on their actions and our underlying commentary to take place, whether on hindsight or during the interactions.

As expected, all of them kept at trying to catch the note, without regard for the other trash strewn around it (eye on the prize). Their persistence might have been prompted by the taunting movements of the note but their interactions with our installation are nonetheless reflective of the precise behaviour we were critiquing; it could have been entirely possible for the trash to have been programmed to react to users as well and move away from them like the note, but no one attempted to engage with the trash (it is unlikely that the thought to do so crossed their minds either).

Ayesha: Many participants took it as a challenge to catch the money. Some words that they used to describe the project were “naughty” and “cheeky”. I think that object behaved kind of like a game or like a practical joke. Since the photocell was placed in front of the note, the participant’s hand had to reach from that direction. However, some participants naturally reached from the side, which did not trigger the light sensor.

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

Man Wei: We faced problems making the motor produce movements that we wanted for the note. We wanted it to move away from the participant when approached and then move back to its original position after. However our original design which used thread/fishing line to attach the note to the motor only produced the first movement, with the note remaining at its new displaced position when the motor turned back. To resolve this we considered other designs that involved multiple threads instead of one and explored materials that were more hardy and taut. Our final solution involves using wire instead, bent also to prevent over forceful movements that flipped the note around. (Refer to design process documentation below)

In terms of coding, we drew from concepts learnt in class and adapted those in the presentation slides. We did not encounter many problems with it besides having to adjust the servomotor angle to create movements we wanted. We had to do some trial and error as well to adjust the angle in relation to the length of the strip attaching the note to the motor, as well as the flexibility/hardiness of the strip material. With different angles, strip lengths and materials, our note could daintily sweep from side to side or violently swerve from one side to another (overturning sometimes even). Eventually we managed to decide on a suitable angle that produced movements of a suitable force and speed while being confined to the width of our constructed platform. Besides motor issues, the only other thing that required more calibration and constant adjustment was the threshold value of the LDR which affected the light sensitivity of our object in different lighting conditions we placed it in.

A room for improvement might be making the attachment between the object and motor less conspicuous/hidden to improve the engagement and element of surprise. Participants might also then receive less prompt to interact with the note (versus the trash) if the presence of the wire had given them this. We could have tried attaching the wire to the bottom of the note and have it concealed below the platform.

Ayesha: We faced challenges in trying to arrange our set up so that the object would be used in a natural and intuitive way.

We tried to conceal the electrical components so as not to distract or confuse participants, and to make the object’s disobedience more surprising for them. We did this by building a cardboard box that covered up the breadbox and Arduino, with holes cut into the cardboard for the photocell and the servo-motor. Since the servo-motor was sticking out, we concealed it with trash.

We also had to orientate the set up in a way that participants would naturally reach for the note from the front, but it seems that we didn’t test this out on enough people as some of our participants reached from different directions and missed the light sensor. If we were to rework this object, perhaps we could add more photocells to read interaction from other directions too.

DESIGN PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

Our initial idea was to have the object move along a vertical axis, retracting backwards. But after trying things out with the servomotor we decided a swaying action (due to the way the motor turns) was better. The side-to-side motion also made the movement seem like the object’s own, and gave it more “life”—recalls scenario of a mouse/torchlight avoiding a cat. Whereas the retracting motion along a vertical axis had a greater suggestion of another agent pulling the note back and forth (like at a ticketing counter). Giving the object a sense of a “life of its own” was more suitable for our concept of the money lying on the floor and avoiding pickers by itself (“pick up the trash” narrative). The retracting motion suited the original “keep the change” narrative more.

1st design: thread/fishing line

The original plan was to use a coin (for change) but we changed it to a dollar note instead because the coin was too heavy.

2nd design: two threads each to different arm of motor

Return motion still not achieved because threads not taut enough

Considered changing up set-up, retaining use of threads:

Wasn’t quite the kind of motion we were going for

3rd design: harder material (cardboard, wire, transparency strips)

The intention for using fishing line/thread at first was with the inconspicuousness of the attachment in consideration. Using wire/harder materials meant that we might have to compromise the visuals/surprise element for performance.

FINAL DESIGN

Servomotor fixed in place under cave of trash

February 14, 2019

Micro-Project 3 – To get her Split

“Wen De, out to get her”

Video link: https://vimeo.com/314509160

For this micro-project, we initially planned to do a sound piece where we each performed a series of spontaneous actions on different metal surfaces around ADM to make a “heavy metal soundtrack” collectively. After multiple takes however, we realised that the screen capture function could not record audio so our sound work was instead a silent piece. We could have given up with the limited time remaining and presented what we had as a sound piece of visual noise, but then I thought of making use of the fact that our screen was only split into 3 parts instead of 4 like other groups (because I didn’t have the video group chat function on Instagram), to recreate a game control kind of display recording.

The product we came up with involves Ayesha and I each displaying a left/right button control in the split bottom screens, which we pressed to move our avatar, Wen De, on the larger top screen. June watched the controls we pressed on screen while delivering instructions accordingly to Wen De and recording him. The inability to record audio was used to our advantage: June’s directions to Wen De could not be heard on video so Wen De could know what directions to take even though he was not looking at the group chat screen himself. Under our (spontaneous) control, we made the avatar navigate aimlessly with a sort of malfunctioning effect within ADM. The slight comical tone to the work was intentional, supported with the video game soundtrack we added in the edit.

I quite enjoyed making this piece with the others. There were multiple setbacks which we encountered: my phone not having the group video function, the discovery that audio could not be recorded, time constraints etc. All of which culminated in the final outcome we produced—and I loved that. This project which we supposedly had most creative control over, involved such a dynamic and unpredictable process of collaboration with others that its outcome feels more uncontrolled (in a good sense) than controlled.

Out of all the 3 Micro-Projects,

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

We had the most creative control in “Together Split” since the outcome of the product was very much just the realization of a preconceived final vision and artistic decision I had decided collectively with my team. We came up with the idea and its execution was wholly dependent on ourselves, made up of our actions only and hence within our own hands.

Whereas for micro-project 1, the creation of the alternative space was an artistic direction constraint placed on us from the offset (instructions given), and we each contributed to the tapestry of images on Instagram as individuals of separate perspectives and occupants of different spaces. The creative control I had in this project was only insofar of my own contributions; I had no control (no individual had) over what others decided to contribute, nor the form of the space that evolved out of the individual contributions pooled together.

In micro-project 2, there was the least creative control. Although we were given free reins over the conceptualization and artistic direction of this project, unlike #1010adm, the outcome of the product was based on the crowd-sourcing of contributions from a targeted, but however open, group of people, participating in our artwork without even knowing it was one/awareness of themselves as participants/viewers. We had no control over how our participant viewers decided to respond and shape the work with their responses. In micro-project 1 at least, we were participants ourselves and could comment and respond to the contributions of others.

which project had the most unpredictable outcome? Why

Curiously, despite micro-project 2 (“Survey With One Question”) being the project I had the least creative control over, for me it wasn’t the one with the most unpredictable outcome. Perhaps it was because I had certain expectations of the way participants would act; I had presupposed that people have little incentive to participate in surveys for inconvenience and the like—the work was conceived precisely to address this issue (/problem?). Hence the crowd-sourced responses, despite their variability amongst individuals (granted and predicted), fell somewhat within my expectations, with but some surprises.

The project I felt had the most unpredictable outcome was instead ironically micro-project 3 (“Together Split”) that as a group we were given the most creative control over. I think for me, the concept of “unpredictable outcome” rests a lot on the expectations I have over the extent of creative control over the work. In “Together Split”, we had literal control over the path Wen De took (the work’s outcome)—Ayesha and I controlled his left and right movements respectively, while June gave him the exact directions. However in retrospect, this “control” felt more like a guise/illusion for what was actually a much more spontaneous navigation of Wen De within ADM, that charted a path with an unpredictability I did not expect. Since Ayesha and I recorded the lift buttons of different floors, we had no communication/coordination also regarding the directions we’d make Wen De take. Arriving at the conceptualization and execution of this piece also, was an unpredictable outcome in itself, conceived only within the last 10 minutes. Our initial plans to create a “collective heavy metal musical jam piece” failed when we realised audio could not be screen-recorded. (So much for the illusion of predictable outcomes with greater creative control)

which project best illustrates the concepts of DIWO & Open–Source? Why?

I think micro-project 1 #1010adm illustrates both concepts best. Both this and micro-project 2 relied on crowd-sourcing the participation of others. Both were tapestries of each individual’s contributions; the “tapestry” of “Survey With One Question” was the visualisation of data collected from individuals, while #1010adm was the alternative space/Instagram pages formed out of the individual posts. However in “Survey With One Question”, while individuals were allowed to view others’ responses, they were not allowed to react to them in a tangible sense (they couldn’t change their responses on comment on others’). Whereas in #1010adm, the freedom to respond to the posts of others—to like, comment and share—allowed the nature of space created collectively to take on another dimension and go a step further. In this way, I consider #1010adm to better illustrate DIWO than “Survey With One Question”. The extent of interaction between individuals, and the overlapping of each person’s spheres of influence, is much greater and powerful in the creation of the outcome in #1010adm.

January 30, 2019January 31, 2019

Micro-Project 2 – Crowd-Sourced Art

“Survey with one question”

A crowd-sourced work about crowd-sourcing (with Ayesha and June)

We sent out a message on all the relevant group chats on Whatsapp and Telegram with our friends and classmates, asking them to help us complete an anonymous Google Forms survey that required of them to answer only one question. The survey was postulated to be accepting responses for only 5 minutes since it was set up (7:03PM-7:08PM), while we continued to collect responses past that window. Respondents are allowed to view the responses of other participants after completion of the survey, allowing them to compare their own guesses/expectations with the actual numbers of participation in real-time, as well as the responses of other participants who might share similar or vastly different expectations of the survey’s participation rate. A catch of the survey was that participants were not allowed to edit their responses after viewing others’. In this sense, the nature of social interaction allowed within the work is given a layer of complexity; participants are able to view the reactions of others, but not allowed to react (or express their reactions) to them.

Responses to the message were mixed. Some expressed confusion, others expressed interest, while there were also those eager to convey that they had participated in the survey (and the 77 other participants who did not).

Data collected:

Responses at the end of the 5min window, **24/1/2019, 7:08PM**. These results can be viewed by respondents after completion of the survey.

Responses climbed from 23 to 65, almost 3 hours after the 5min window, **24/1/2019, 9:54PM**.

We didn’t specify or limit the range of numbers that respondents could give nor give them context to the number or profile of people that the survey was sent out to. Giving our participants this freedom in answering the survey allowed us to collect responses that reflected the individual’s attitudes in participation; some responses were clearly thought out and reflected the respondent’s desire and attempt to get the best estimate, while others reflected a lack of seriousness and jokester attitude with purposely exaggerated responses. I thought this to be an important part of the work: capturing not just participation (and non-participation), but also the nature of participation captured.

Summary of data collected. People continued to respond to the survey even after the postulated 5min window [yellow highlight] was over and some even responded the next day [blue highlight]. A range of responses were given, showing how people had great/little faith in others’ receptiveness to participation. There were also null responses [orange highlights]- possibly by people who were confused or thought the question to be meaningless. The exaggerated jokester response [in red] contrasts with numbers like “357” and 41″ that show greater attempts at estimation.

The content of the work is the participation of the survey respondents themselves, with the data collected—both their question responses and participation timestamp—serving as tangible records of this.

In this work, we intended to explore the concept of participation. Frequently, we send out surveys to our friends and classmates on group chats asking them to help us out for school assignments. Receptiveness to such requests for participation vary: the messages are either ignored, postponed (and eventually forgotten) or given the attention desired (participation in the survey). A variety of factors affect the individual’s receptiveness/participation, including convenience, required time for completion, social/relational obligations (favour exchange) etc. We wanted to explore these factors and what drives participation; where there is no (appealing) incentive for participation, what makes people participate? From the data collected, people’s expectations of others’ receptiveness to participation (arguably conflated with kindness/helpfulness) are also revealed. The work is a discovery of our crowd-sourced community’s reception to participation for us, as much as it is for the participants themselves.

As opposed to a work created by a single artist/creator, this crowd-sourced work is much more dynamic and spontaneous in its creation process and outcome. We all had our own expectations of the number of responses (I wasn’t the most optimistic) that the survey would collect. Arguably, these expectations were a form of “control” over the work, and were relinquished with the unexpected data and participation rates that emerged from crowd-sourcing. It was rather refreshing to approach the concept of expectations (about participation) with the method of crowd-sourcing that rides on uncertainty and unexpected outcome.

January 23, 2019

Micro-Project 1- Creating the Third .

The (physical) space I chose to photograph is the corner with the hot water dispenser and cooler outside the drawing studio. It’s always cold in ADM and it is the one place I find myself ever wanting to go within the school (at every chance of break between classes we get). I edited the image of the hot water dispenser a bit to reduce the tonal intensity of its red, to allude to the idea of it dispensing warmth to me upon my interaction with it. The picture is however also meant to refer to “spaces” in general that bring me warmth within the school: these include the spaces created by and offered to me from my friends, as well as physical ones I ascribe pleasant memories to.

Collage/tapestry of different spaces and times inhabited by others

The alternative virtual space created through the exercise was notably dynamic and expansive as opposed to static and confined, transforming in real-time by admitting cumulative spaces/times posted by my peers (most apparent from the ‘Recent’ page filter and its updates). While my photograph of the hot water dispenser captured only my perspective and connections with the space, the space “on/within/bound to” Instagram revealed those of others in relation to the same space.

Another person’s post on the same subject matter of the hot water dispenser, but with a different caption and personal connection with the space.

moontripping and zl.debyu both expressed personal connections they have with the hot water dispenser in ADM (moontripping through her photo post and zl.debyu in her comments and responses to our pictures)

The virtual space created was not only a tapestry of different spaces and times, but also of different spatial connections different people made with a single space. These spaces/spatial connections were expressed not only in the photographs posted but also in the comments and responses to one another’s posts. Individuated experiences and expressions of space piece together this space collectively created and shared. The project curiously embodies both the “DIY” and “DIWO” culture—its “DIWO” nature is based upon a “DIY” activity. Perhaps this is my biggest takeaway from the exercise: that “DIWO” does not require individuals to occupy the same physical and psychological space, nor participate in the same activity/action; “Y” and “O” do not need to share an (explicit) interest in co-creation. A collective artwork/entity can be conceived in such an unintentional and spontaneous state.

Maybe any subject and its origin/creation process really, can be said to be a (continuously evolving) product of a “DIWO” culture and set of collective actions—so long as one chooses to view it from such a perspective. Alternatively we could re-evaluate the concept of “DIWO” and more strictly define what it means to do something with others. A stricter definition however, might deny/undermine the presence of others alongside individuals and the possible connections and relations between them, where they are not explicitly designed or observed to be so, and prevent us from discovering subjects as (beautiful) spontaneous and chance co-creations.

November 23, 2018

[3D] For Emiko

Part 1:

Part 2:

October 24, 2018October 24, 2018

[3D] 2B: En Pointe

Research

Dance piece: AMA

After watching the dance, these were the concepts I associated it with:

Opposing forces that mutually reinforce: force of the dancer’s motion versus the viscous drag force of the water
Stretching/dragging out of time and gesture (slow-motion): gestures are magnified and rendered in slow-motion because of water resistance
Paradoxical weight: simultaneously heavy and weightless impression of dancer who alternately sinks and floats

From these words I visualised how I might represent opposing forces that showed both opposition and harmony in either direction or change in magnitude. The form of a cone resonated with me in its possibility to represent my concept of a force: its pointed tip indicating direction and the conical “flanks”/plane that extended outwards suggesting a convergence/divergence of increasing/decreasing strength of the force. I thought of combining multiple conical structures and stringing them together with another material like wire to further allude to direction.

From here I thought of the materials that might be good for making cones and thought of paper. But by chance I discovered plastic cups in the storeroom which I thought had a conical structure I could experiment with so I started to explore ways of manipulating cups. Thereafter my working process became heavily driven by material qualities of the cup (very much like my first assignment with satay sticks).

Development

I experimented with different ways of cutting up cups and joining them together and found that joining them by the curves formed by their rims gave interesting forms.

Ways of cutting:

Vary number of cuts: 2/3, 4 was too much
Vary type of cut: straight down/curves (went with curves for its more organic form)
Vary length of cut (how far down to the base of cup the cut went): halfway/all the way down, affected curvature of forms that could be made

Ways of joining:

Rim-to-rim (following curvature flow)
Rim-to-rim (trying to complete circular form)
Base-to-base
Rim-to-base
Random stacking

I tried out my wire-strung cones idea by stringing wires through holes poked through the bases of the cups, varying their curvature and ways they crossed:

Stacked cups strung together didn’t look very visually pleasing
Separate cups strung together just looked like cups, purpose of using cups for their curves/conical structures lost
Cups joined together by curves with wires strung through didn’t look very cohesive (colour + direction)

Joining cups by their curves resulted in a form that didn’t really fit my intent of using the conical structure of cups in the first place and the visual I had of it, but I was quite keen to use the form for my final because it looked interesting. The form of the joined curves was also somewhat suggestive of the nature of gestures in the dance, so I thought I could proceed with it.

Nonetheless I tried making conical structures with paper as well as I had initially planned to, then thought of combining them with the cups even. Instead of using wires to string the paper cones, I explored using cups to contain the paper cones and “string” them together. I thought the prototype of this fit my concept of opposing/complementing forces quite well and conveyed the dragged/stretched out effect, but I thought it was a bit of a pity to just settle with plain cup-and-paper-cone-stacking when the joined cups created a more interesting visual.

This led me to explore adding paper cones to the joined cup structures and see how they might emphasise the cones of the cups as suggested opposing/complementing forces. I liked that paper both contrasted and complemented the cups quite well in textural quality and colour. However I felt that the addition of paper cones were a bit distracting to the curves that the cups made and concealed parts of them (what I wanted to keep). They also didn’t really add to the cups in a way that it aligned with concepts of the dance.

In the end I decided to have the cups “string themselves together” and have a have a structure based primarily on self-supporting and extending joined cups. Whereas the additional material would play more of a supporting role: tracing the directions in which the water medium is disturbed, and emphasising the dragged out quality of the gestures and forces represented by the cups.

I bought different types of cups of varied material, size, pattern and shape to experiment with, bowls even. I explored different ways of cutting and joining them, orienting them for different angles. I also tried pairing different cups together like the white and transparent one to suggest the idea of opposing forces.

Types of cups:

Transparent plastic cup with horizontal line pattern

-Alone, presence not commanding enough VS opaque materials’ ability to suggest form and force/ gesture of dance more strongly

-Tried to combine with other opaque materials (white cups) → liked the relationship between the two suggested: harmonious in joined curves, while contrasting in size, texture and colour (fitting concept of paradoxically opposing and mutually enhancing forces of dance)

White plastic cup with horizontal line pattern

-Horizontal lines don’t add value/ contribute to conception of dance

White plastic cup with smooth surface + curved walls*
White paper cup with smooth surface

-Somehow doesn’t have same elegance and resonance with dance piece compared to plastic

Off-white biodegradable plastic cup with horizontal line pattern

-Doesn’t have same elegance and resonance with dance piece

White plastic bowl with vertical line pattern*

-Cutting straight along vertical lines produced neater cuts but curved cuts produced more organic forms/curves

-Vertical line pattern helps to accentuate the form and direction of the conical walls– which for me suggest the manifestation of drag for each gesture (rim curves) within water

Of the different cups, the starred ones created forms that I felt were more visually appealing and more closely fit my conception of the dance.

Choosing between bowls and cups, at some point I found the line patterns of the bowls distracting because they implied direction towards the base of the bowl, instead of following the direction of the curves formed by the rims entirely. I thought having a smooth surface without patterns would draw better focus to the rim curves and be more effective in conveying the dance gestures.

Pairing transparent and white cups to make hanging sculptures

While joining the cups by their rim curves, I found that the structure made could either be standing or hanging depending on how densely I arranged them and the number of joints I made. Between the two, I decided to do a standing sculpture. I felt that the standing arrangement conveyed the idea of paradoxical weight better than a hanging arrangement. The hanging one had a more elegant form and clearer upward flow but the suspension appearance made it feel more entirely lightweight than both weighted and weightless. Whereas in the standing sculpture, there is the contrast between the grounded cups and those that are elevated, such that the elevated ones have the similar quality of appearing both weighted and weightless like the dancer carried afloat by water.

Standing sculpture: different orientations

Hanging sculpture: different orientations (bowls and cups)

While I had all along visualised and planned for wires to be used to create lines that emphasised the flow of the cups’ motion, when I put the materials together they didn’t look harmonious. There was too much contrast in colour and surface quality. So I explored using paper strips instead since cones didn’t look too bad with the plastic cups when I tried them out before. I discovered that paper gave me the benefit of introducing more interesting lines and a variety of them—by having some width (compared to a wire), the strips allowed twisting, curling and rolling in the elegant lines created between the cups. Although paper was much better than wire in complementing the plastic cups, I wasn’t too sure there was enough contrast because it was white like the cups. I didn’t want to introduce colour either (colour paper) because of the additional associations colour introduced—I also perceived the “colour” of the dance to be white/colourless (elegance/serenity/suspension/water), so using dark colours like black or blue for the literal association with water was out of question.

I considered using transparent materials instead and thought of using plastic tubes or making them myself with rolled transparencies/cling wrap even but they all seemed pretty shabby in appearance. By chance I turned to the materials I already had at hand and cut up the transparent plastic cup I had eliminated for the main form of the sculpture to see what forms I could “recycle” out of it. In my final, I used strips cut from the cup’s bottom section below its rim. These were rigid (could hold itself) but twistable to form some pretty elegant flowy lines, and were conspicuous as well compared to other parts of the cup that were too “transparent”.

Final

Working from my prototypes to the final, I made a conscious effort to try to “declutter” the arrangement of the cups to have more breathing room and spaces within the structure. I also tried to make the snaking motion and direction of flow implied more pronounced. The prototypes were too cluttered and heavy to the extent that the flow and quality of weightlessness was were compromised.

In the final, conical structures are not used to represent forces in the way I had initially conceptualised them to. Instead, the opposing forces manifest in the unique structure of the cups themselves: the lines formed by the rims are the dancers’ gestures and the flanking planes (sort of like water resistance echoes or ripples) are the drag force. Arrangement of the cups are cumulative and slowly build-up to produce a flow that conveys the idea of stretched time and gesture.

October 2, 2018

[3D] 2A: Polyhedron Dreams

A. Line Model

Tetrahedron out of chopsticks, bound by red rubber bands.

B. Planar Model

Research

I was initially obsessed with planning execution. I wanted to systematically plan how many edges, lines and planes to imply/create in order to suggest the form of a tetrahedron in the most interesting way. I studied the tetrahedron structure thoroughly and came up with different permutations of the number of planes required to suggest x number of edges/lines/planes.

Development

When it got down to making the structure though, it was harder than I thought to follow my intended permutation. I found that just experimenting with random cut-outs and not being consciously fixated on doing things a certain way was more productive and created more interesting forms.

Final

My final planar model is therefore one that is more of a result of experimentation than planning/execution of a preconceived idea/vision. My experimentation was however guided by considerations to variations in size, shape and orientation of the planes so as to create dimensional interest while still bearing semblance to the tetrahedron form. The entire process was a tedious one with continuous trial-and-error.

C. Final Model

Research

On the idea of “breaking away”, I considered shifting planes as well as unfolding skeletal structures, but found myself drawn to working with lines of the skeletal structure more. I did not reference any particular artist or style specifically, but the stretching quality of the form in Barbara Hepworth’s “Stringed Figure” did influence the loose visual I wanted for my final model– particularly its use of lines that joined the diverging planes (which I perceived to be “tendons”/ inner strings holding the initial form together).

Development

I wanted to start from the skeletal structure instead of the planar one and began with the idea of having the lines detach from their original joints and slowly unravel. I brainstormed and experimented with the different ways I might be able to do this: one of the ideas was to have the lines come apart such that they slowly detached to form a continuous snaking structure that winded upwards to show the dynamism and upward motion of “breaking away”. However I decided in the end to limit the detaching/disjoining effect to just the three lines that converge at the tip of the tetrahedron, and to retain the triangular shape of the base structure (in the snaking upwards idea the base breaks away as well) for a stronger semblance to the tetrahedron form from that particular side. I experimented with the number of lines out of the three to detach as well such that I had an interesting form that was stable enough to stand alone at the same time– 2 out of 3 / 3 out of 3 detached from the base. The final idea went for 2 out of 3, prioritising the stability concern, and working within that restriction to find the most interesting form it allowed.

For this idea, the visual I had in mind was to have the three sticks lift themselves upwards from the base joints and be tilted at different angles so that from the top and sides they looked sort of like an expanded structure somewhat like a exploding flower. I also wanted to have the additional material be used to join the lines where they detached from their original joints on the base to illustrate the tension and pulling away motion/path that they had taken. For this, I envisioned the material to form curves to create a sort of stretching effect, rather than straight lines which would come across more like supporting rigid structures or extensions part of the structure itself. Materials I considered to form these curves were wires and strings. However, I realised these materials were unable to support the weight of the lifted chopsticks and the only material on my hands that could do this was satay sticks (chosen also because of their complementary colour and similar appearance with the chopsticks that formed the skeletal frame).

With satay sticks however, the structures that I could make/ it alluded to were very linear and straight, in contrast to the stretched curves I wanted. I started to explore the material and see if rigid straight sticks could somehow form curves by bending/breaking them. To my surprise the angles at which they were broken held quite well and as supporting structures they were quite durable and did not snap at the joints I broke them. Yet at the same time there was some degree of flexibility that allowed the sticks to come across as “soft bendable” structures at the joints. I also discovered that the splinters that resulted at the joints I broke them were to my liking and created a “broken” quality that fit the idea of the structure breaking apart. I started to form “curves” with broken satay sticks, joining them together with masking tape in my prototype.

For my final, I had initially planned on putting the sticks together with hot glue gun, but I found that I liked the use of masking tape in the prototypes: the colour of the tape was harmonious with the sticks and the way they joined the sticks together at the joints conveyed this idea of “repair”, resembling the way we bandaged broken bones (once again fitting the “broken” quality I was going for). This material choice eventually led me to use masking tape to create the planes in my final as well. I created planes with masking tape to represent the “debris” and “fragments” left of the tetrahedron as it breaks apart/away. At first my placement of the planes and variation of sizes was completely spontaneous and random. However I realised that planes at certain places, particularly the area where the highest-lifted chopstick extended away, distracted/ compromised the interesting visuals the sticks alone created. Hence I removed these planes and concentrated them mainly at the bottom where the unlifted chopstick was and had them spread out increasingly in the direction that the most lifted chopstick extended (“escalation” / “peak” of breaking away motion). I quite liked the “flexibility” of the planes the tape formed: at different tautness they could be flat or curves of varying curvature. While meant to represent fragments of a larger plane broken, I found that they also felt like planes that were trying to hold the structure that was breaking away together (alluded by the “repair” bandage nature of masking tape itself).

Final

Overall, I used my explorations of materials chosen to try to express the idea of a tetrahedron breaking away in its skeletal structure. In the creation of the final, I think I let materials (qualities and constraints) guide the outcome more, with only a loose concept in mind while working, as opposed to working by selecting materials to fit a well-developed, pre-conceived vision.

My peers gave feedback during the critique that the organic curves in my prototypes were more visually interesting than my final where the curvatures of the sticks were less pronounced and more rigid. On hindsight I agree with them and might consider returning to sticks to further explore creating organic forms out of rigid materials again (or other rigid materials).

October 26, 2018