Micro-Project 6: A Day in the Life of Super-Participation

(In collaboration with Clara, Minjee, Tanya, and Youlmae)

24 hours on social media… In the beginning, that sounded really fun. Oh boy, was I wrong…

Courtesy of Clara Cheng

Rules of the Tangy Young Classy Fine Mingoes:

  1. to post an update every 30 minutes for 24 hours on the Facebook Page
  2. to appear to be having a conversation with each other on the page
  3. use as many ways possible to show the updates

I felt that before this project I was already sorta addicted to checking social media (more of a nothing-better-to-do/boredom thing). But after this project, I had a realization that actually my addiction isn’t as bad as I thought it was.

Having my phone around with me 24/7, social media is available to me with just a click of a button.

However, I realized that my dependency on social media was more towards an entertainment platform rather than communication. For example, I would rather be scrolling through social media reading memes, than posting tweets about what I did.

At first, the idea of updating people about what I was doing every 30 minutes, did not feel like a challenge. But as I was constantly updating, I realised how this act was disrupting my day-to-day activities.

In the beginning, I felt that my group members and I were excited to start this project.

But eventually, everyone got sick and tired of having to stop whatever they were doing to post something.

On that day, I was at the Asian Civilisation Museum for my Art History research,  I couldn’t even appreciate the artworks properly because I was busy looking at the clock to check whether it was time to post. Imagine trying to appreciate art, but there is something in the back of my mind, constantly thinking “has it been 30 minutes yet?”

It was a fun first experience, I’ve really never updated anybody on my whereabouts or what I was doing for 24/7.

Was it an invasion of my privacy?

Hmm… Nope, not to me. Because I still had control over what I want to post.

Will I ever do this again?

Hell no.


Glitch Singapore | Ten Courts of Hell

Links to previous post: Process | Group OSS


General Rules
  • Similar to Snake and Ladder, Virtual Players will roll the dice to determine which Court they land on
  • Each Court is designated a location in Haw Par Villa
  • Real Players will move to the location of the Court that the Virtual Player lands on
  • The fastest team to reach the 10th Court of Hell wins
  • Throughout the entire game, both players will be communicating with each other through Instagram Live, that is available for non-players to watch
  • In each Court, both players will have to participate in a game
  • If they win the game, the Virtual Player can immediately roll the dice
  • However, if they lose, they must face the consequence by waiting for 5 minutes before they can continue

Team A

Team B

Virtual Player 

(situated in ADM)

Jiang Nan


Real Player

(situated in Haw Par Villa)




DIWO/Third Space/glitch
DIWO Players act as co-creators by shaping the outcome of the game. We, the facilitators, only offered the framework of the game using the 10 stations. We had no control over which stations the players go to or how fast/slow they get to the end.

Players contribute to the “artwork” by rolling the dice to determine which station they go to and how they play at each station.

Third Space We played with the idea of game pawns/avatars from traditional board games. Where the Virtual Players act as the force that moves the game pawns and the Real Players are the game pawns/avatar moving on the board game.

To create a third space that connects the Virtual Players and Real Players, we made use of Instagram Live. Both players will go on live broadcast together in the same “channel”. They had to play with each other through the live broadcast.  Thus, the third space being Instagram Live.

Glitch We allowed glitch to happen of its own accord, knowing that we would face some sort of glitch while playing the game. “Embracing the glitch”

And it did.

Some glitches we faced are:

–          Broadcasting glitches where we lost connection with each other during the game causing some delays

–          Camera battery running out, causing delays to the game as batteries needed to be changed

–          Glitch in instructions where we understood the game differently.


Site Visit

When we first decided to create a game at Haw Par Villa, we thought that going to the actual site itself will help us in creating the stations, understanding the Ten Courts of Hell, and finding the locations for the stations.

Thus, we went to Haw Par Villa to recce the site.

During the recce, we began by visiting the Ten Courts of Hell where we observed the statues and the inscriptions for each court.

After which, we ventured around the rest of the theme park to find locations that may suit the theme of each court.

After 4 hours of looking around (well we had our own fun too), we decided on our 10 locations and started brainstorming the games we could play in each station.

Test Run

Unfortunately, we weren’t able to have a full rehearsal before the actual execution due to lack of time. Instead, we decided to do some test run of the games to ensure that the games were feasible and executable. We also enlisted the help of Brendan and Nik (he just wanted to play Twister) to test out our games. We figured getting somebody else to play our game would also give us an opportunity to see whether people can understand our instructions.

This proved to have been a good move as some games had to be tweaked because we either realized it was too easy or too difficult.

For example:

  1. Balance the Ping Pong Ball – Initially, the timing allocated was 1 minute, but we realized that that was a long time and we could easily complete it well below 1 minute. Thus, we changed it to 10 secs and 30 secs instead,
  2. Scissors, Paper, Stone – The initial idea was to have both Virtual and Real Player playing at the same time with their respective facilitator. However, their win or lose determines whether their partner gets to move up or down. E.g. if Virtual Player wins a game against the Virtual Facilitator, the Real Player has to move up the stairs. However, when testing out the game, it was taking extremely long and it got very confusing. Thus, we decided to simplify the game, with only one player playing the game of Scissors, Paper, Stone instead of both.


While we were testing out the games, we realized that we were having problems trying to explain the instructions and that our understanding of the game is different from person to person.

Thus, we created the Facilitator’s Guide Handbook (click here to view the document), where all the instructions for both facilitators in ADM and at Haw Par Villa are listed out. The Handbook also serves as a way for us to keep our instructions consistent with each other so that players receive the same set of instructions. Keeping the game as fair as possible.

Packing List

This was mainly a problem for the Haw Par Villa facilitators (Clara and I). Because we are at Haw Par Villa, we had to ensure that we brought everything along and nothing is left behind in ADM. It would be a complete disaster if we had forgotten to bring the game materials such as ping pong balls, five stones. Furthermore, Clara and I will be separated throughout the game, therefore, we had to have two sets of everything.

So, we set up a packing list that lists out everything we need to bring along.

Items IC
25 paper turtles
2 small plastic bags each (1 red 1 white)
1 sets of tape each Clara
1 empty water bottle each
1 set of color paper for twister each Clara
1 spoon each Everyone
1 set of ping pong balls each Fizah, Clara
1 set of scrolls with numbers each
1 set of wet wipes each
1 set of boxes with gross things inside each
1 set of marbles each Fizah
1 plastic bag each
1 set of 5 stones each
1 tea bag each Minjee
3 paper cups each
Hot water bottle each

Date: Friday, 13th April 2018

Time: 3pm

D-Day had arrived.

The nervousness in the air was palpable.

Personally, many thoughts went through my head; What if Clara and I forgot something? What if we can’t get a signal connection? What if it rains? What if security kicks us out? WHAT IF SOMEONE GETS INJURED?

I was vividly freaking out in the morning.

Before execution, we went through the Facilitator Guide Handbook together to ensure that everyone was on the same page.


It was time.

The moment we got into the car, an ominous sign appeared. It started to rain.

Amazingly, it stopped raining the moment we reached Haw Par Villa. However, the floor got slippery, so we had to be extra careful.

After about 1 and a half hour, the game ended.

Here are some highlights of the game:

  1. The 1st Court of Hell involves the team battle which resulted in Team B (Cecilia and Esther) winning. Thus, Team B moved to 3rd Court of Hell, while Team A moved to the 2nd Court of Hell.
  2. Even though Team B had an advantage, Team A was in the lead – they were at 4th Court of Hell when Team B was still at the 3rd Court of Hell.
  3. At the 8th Court of Hell – Body Dismemberment, the two teams finally meet each other with Team A arriving first. Unfortunately, Team A lost the game and had to wait 5 minutes, giving time for Team B to catch up. Team B manages to complete the game before Team A’s 5 minutes was over. Team A rolled a 1, hence they still had to go through the 9th Court of Hell. So, Team B rolled the dice, hoping to land a 2. But, they rolled a 1. (Mind you, both teams had been rolling a 2 throughout the entire game)
  4. Thus, begin the race to reach the 9th Court of Hell as both teams dashed to the location.
  5. Team A arrived first, hence, they get to play first. Jiangnan (Virtual Player), however, didn’t manage to find any paper stones, leading to Vanessa (Real Player) having to complete 5 rounds of paper stone. Unexpectedly, we found out that both Esther and Vanessa, the Real Players, are not familiar with 5 stones. Some time had to be taken to explain the game to them. Eventually, Team A managed to get it within one try and they proceeded to the 10th Court of Hell.
  6. Admitting defeat, Team B’s Esther and I took our time to reach the final location. However, the moment we reached there, Team A was nowhere in sight. The game ended interestingly with a “glitch”, not being able to determine who the winning team was.
  7. Unexpectedly, we realized that we managed to cover all 10 Courts of Hell.
1 Ideas The first challenge we faced as a team was coming up with a solid plan that incorporates DIWO, Third Space and Glitch. When brainstorming, a lot of our ideas wasn’t fully able to integrate this factors well enough. For example, in one of our first few plans, Third Space was integrated last, to which we realized that the “performance” can exist without having Third Space. Thus, we had to change our idea in a way that all 3 factors must exist in order for the game to run.


Also, the first few ideas we had were overly complicated to the point that we had difficulties explaining our idea. We had to spend 4 hours on Skype discussing whether to change our idea totally or change certain aspects.

2 Finding a Location After coming up with several ideas, we hit another roadblock. We had an issue with finding the right location. The first idea we had required us to set up an area for a period of 1 – 2 hours. This was an issue because we would require a permit or a license to set up such a space. Hence, we had to come up with an idea that would not require a permit or license.
3 Finding Players It was a busy period for everyone in ADM so it was a challenge trying to persuade people to help us with our game. Furthermore, we required extra hands to help us with filming. There was a lot of reshuffling of players and film crew before we got our final team.
4 Preparation A lot of time was spent preparing for the game. As mentioned previously, we had to do test runs, prepare guidebooks, and prepare the games.


Packing was another big issue. With Clara and I having to each carry a set of game items, we had to ensure that we had two sets of everything. Initially, we planned to begin the game at 3pm. However, at 3pm we were still packing our stuff in ADM. Causing a huge delay, and resulting in the games only starting at about 3.45pm


Overall, the game went better than what we expected. Honestly, I was mentally preparing for the worse. With the actual day being Friday the 13th, I was expecting something to go horribly.

As they say, “Prepare for the worst but hope for the best”.

I personally think that we planned the game with Murphy’s Law in our head. I felt that that really helped us to ensure that we were detailed and thorough when planning our games.

Nonetheless, there is always room for improvement. After reviewing the Instagram Live, we see a few comments from people asking “what is going on?”. It was then that I realized that from the point of view of someone who just logged in into the Instagram Live halfway through the game, would not have known what was going on. Furthermore, there wasn’t an incentive for people to continue watching the entire game. Thus, I thought an area that could be improved on is the engagement with the audience.

If I had another chance to redo the game, I wished that I, as a facilitator, had been more neutral and remained impartial. Because throughout the game, I became so attached to the team, that I felt like I was almost playing with them. I think that hindered my duty as a facilitator.

Glitch Singapore | Process

In this post, I’ll be sharing the process of the final project, research and the evolution from the first idea to the final project.

Link to other posts: Final Individual | Final Group


We started with the mutual mindset that we wanted to create something uncomfortable for the audience. Also, we wanted to focus on creating a performance art.


We came up with the idea of creating a physical space where participants will have to react to the surroundings and their reaction will garner another reaction from the actor in that same space.

The participant enters a room decorated with everyday items; tables, chairs, books, papers, etc. The room begins in a slight state of chaos with a chair overturned and books on the floor. Participants enter the room and are given 2 options: 1) Tear the room apart 2) Put the things back in place. The actor in the room reacts to the decision they make, going berserk when they choose the second option and being calm when they choose the first.

As someone new comes along, they will build on what the previous participant had done. Hence, being a form of DIWO.

After coming up with the idea, we started thinking about locations. Since we intended to create a “room” we needed to have an actual space. Thus, we decided on East Coast Park, because we can book an area (like a tentage) to set up.

However, after consultation, we realized that our idea was not site-specific. Basically, there wasn’t any particular reason why it had to be ECP, the “artwork” can happen anywhere.

Second Idea

Taking the feedback into consideration, we began doing some research.

We found that ECP’s Yellow Tower was known for being notoriously haunted by a ghost of a girl who was murdered there. Read here if you would like to know more.

Thus, we decided to center our “room” based on the Yellow Tower Ghost. The actor in the room acting as the Yellow Tower Ghost. We began to incorporate paranormal elements into the artwork.

Replacing the items in the room with paint instead. Where red paint represents death and killing for the ghost, and white paint represents exorcism/cleansing of the ghost.

We incorporated third space by having two participants, one located in the “room” and the other located at the Yellow Tower. The third space is created by having the two communicate with each other through a walkie-talkie or phone call. The person at the Yellow Tower does not have any clue on how the “room”
looks like but have to give instructions to the other player on what they should do.

During consultation, Lei brought up that there wasn’t a strong enough reason to have that extra player at the Yellow Tower. Meaning, the third space element was not exactly well thought out.


Decisions had to be made.

Should we change our entire idea? or Should we change certain aspects?

We had a mutual agreement that our idea was overly complicated. Therefore, we decided to change it completely.

However, not wanting to start from scratch, we kept the idea of having a paranormal theme.

During our discussion, we found that Haw Par Villa was the most suitable location as it embodies Singapore’s paranormal scene the best.

Why Haw Par Villa?

Haw Par Villa is notorious for being haunted. Legend says that Haw Par Villa is where lies one of the gates of hell and that the statues are actually dead humans covered with wax. Furthermore, Haw Par Villa is rich with Chinese culture and features an area called the “Ten Courts of Hell” that depicts what it is like to be in hell.


Hole in Space (1980)

Galloway, Kit; Rabinowitz, Sherrie, «Hole in Space», 1980
Photography | © Galloway, Kit; Rabinowitz, Sherrie

An inspiration for our third space element is the Hole in Space (1980) by Sherry Rabinowitz & Kit Galloway. This artwork brought people from the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts in New York City, and “The Broadway” department store located in the open air Shopping Center in Century City, Los Angeles. Passers-by are greeted with a life-size live televised broadcast of people from the other side of America. They were also able to communicate and have a chat with each other.

Blast Theory: Can You See Me Now? (2001)

One of the first location-based games, online players have to run around trying to escape the Blast Theory’s runners who are trying to catch them. This Blast Theory Runner’s are running around the streets and they are being tracked by satellites. Both of their locations on the map are made aware to both players.

We were inspired by the use of 2 different players; a virtual player and a real player. In the case of “Can You See Me Now?” the players are competing against each other. We thought instead, why not make the players work together instead. Thus, the idea of a cooperative virtual and real player came about.

“This is the end of my process post, to know more about the Final Project, click here

Hyperessay | Social Broadcasting: A Communications Revolution

We’re all familiar with traditional television broadcasting where it is a one-way transmission of “ideas”. When we watch TV, we receive these images, videos, and information from a one-way perspective where we as viewers are unable to share our own ideas.

With the progression of technology, Social Broadcasting came about. It gives an opportunity for people to collaborate and exchange ideas that could not have been done before.

In this essay, I will be discussing how the 3-day Symposium has made use of Social Broadcasting as a form of collaboration and exchange of ideas between many-to-many people, be it speakers, performers, or viewers. (will mainly be speaking about Day 1 & Day 3)

Keynote Speakers

During Day 1 of the Symposium, we had the pleasure of having Maria Chatzichristodoulou to share with us about telematics in arts and performance.

Telematics, as mentioned by Maria Chatzichristodoulou on Day 1 of the Symposium, can be defined as:

“The use of telecommunication networks to establish links to between two remote spaces of the same kind and to present the activities in those two separate spaces variously at a single performance event. These activities make use of the web as a third performance space”

From this definition, we can see how this Symposium can also be considered a Telematics Performance. Where the web-based online symposium brings people, speakers to performers to viewers, from different geographically remote spaces, in a single performance space.

What sets itself apart from a traditional television broadcasting, is the ability for us viewers to ask questions and share our own thoughts and ideas through the chat function. And the speaker being able to reply and share their own thoughts immediately.


I had the opportunity to witness 2 different performances that happened through this Social Broadcasting platform.

Online-Ensemble: Entanglement Training

In this performance, Annie Abrahams and her collaborators investigate how to communicate in a Social Broadcasting setting.

What I find interesting about this performance is the use of objects, prepared phrases and voices to converse with each other in a way that brings the performers from the different geographical location into a single space.

It entangles the issues of Social Broadcasting where there is a presence of “partial overviews, glitches, time-lags, disrupting audience participation and ensuing disorientation”.

With Social Broadcasting, there are obvious complications to it. For example, the bandwidth for everyone is different which could result in time-lags and glitch disruptions.

The performers made use of these complications to their own advantage which I felt is a form of embracing “Glitch Art” as discussed in lecture and through Micro-Project 5.

As mentioned in the Randall Packer, Conversation with Jon Cates (2014) Hyperallergic:

“For me, this approach to noise or noisiness, or dirt, or dirtiness, is a way to foreground as you say, an aberrance or perversion of normative message or what we might perceive to be logical reasoning.”

As a form of “Glitch Art”, this performance strays far away from the idea of perfection or “logical reasoning” and embraces the flaws or glitches of the Social Broadcasting.

igaies (intimate glitches across internet errors)

This performance “intended to be a series of small miraculous mistakes, moments of beautiful brokenness, redefining Glitch Art through participatory networks and gestures”.

In terms of being “Glitch Art”, I personally felt that the first performance by XXXtraPrincess embodies it the best. The constantly changing of screens and overlapping voices emphasizes the aversion to the idea of perfection and instead made use of the glitch as an art form.

However, throughout all the performances, I personally felt that the Social Broadcasting element was not highlighted. It was more like a traditional television broadcasting where we are just watching things unfold. There was a lack of connectivity between performers and viewers, in terms of Social Broadcasting. It was a one-way exchange of ideas, a televised performance art would be a more suitable way of explaining it.

Nonetheless, it was an eye-opening performance to me as they dwell into sensitive topics that I felt that Singapore is too afraid and conservative to trudge upon. It was definitely a culture shock from the usual art we see in Singapore.

All in all,

The Symposium highlighted the different essence of Social Broadcasting and how it engages the idea of many-to-many broadcasting. Using the chat function, collaborative performances, and discussions.

Micro Project 7: Video Selfie (Marina Abramovic)

Based on Marina Abramovic’s Rhythm 10 performance at a festival in Edinburgh in 1973.

She lays twenty different knives and two cassette recorders on a white paper on the floor.

For my Video Selfie, I wanted to recreate the same setup. For obvious reasons, I replaced the knives with a pencil, a marker, and a penknife. I chose this 3 replacements as it symbolizes traditional art which I detest. These instruments serve as a painful reminder to me that I can’t excel in traditional art.

To further reenact the performance, I sat on the floor, facing down, and dressed in dark colours. Portraying myself as a vulnerable being which I believe Marina intended for.

I proceeded to record the sound on my phone which is placed on my side. Similarly, with the Rhythm 10 performance, I stabbed the areas between my outstretched fingers of my left hand using the instruments.

After completing the cycle, I repeated the process but this time, trying to be in sync with the sound recorded from the first cycle.

As much as I wished to completely recreate this performance, due to certain limitations, I had to change certain ideas. To recreate the idea of blood, I splattered some dark paint on the paper and my left hand.

“the mistakes of the past and those of the present are synchronous”

In some way, I am facing the consequences of the past where I used to reject traditional art. Thus resulting in me suffering now as I learn to adapt and figure out traditional art.

Research Critique 3: Micro Project 5

(In collaboration with Azizah, Naomi and Qistina)

“Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.” – Gautama Buddha

We began this micro-project with the idea of how words can be a cause for destruction. The words we speak can have a great impact on a person and create a lasting memory. In this micro-project, we delve into the idea of how negative words leads to the destruction of a beautiful form and transforms it into a complete mess. I felt that our project embraces an underlying societal problem where we aren’t aware how much our words can affect people.

In the Ant Farm, Media Burn (1975) mentioned in the Interview with Chip Lord, the performance art is “a creation of an image” that serves as “a powerful critique of television”. Similarly to this micro project, it tackles a certain societal issue, wherein the case of Media Burn, it “challenges and destroys television” for its ubiquitous presence in everyday lives.

For this beautiful form, we chose a flower which we plucked out from its plant (the first form of destruction – in the form of removing it from its natural environment).

After which, we brought it to someplace else, where we began our attack of words as well as physical attack. As we recite the negative poem, we see the flower getting cut, stabbed, burned, stepped on and eventually buried.

Towards the end, we see a breakage of the linear narrative where the narrative sequence was jumbled up, resulting in an inconsistency – a form of glitch that we incorporated. As mentioned in the Randall Packer, Conversation with Jon Cates (2014) Hyperallergic:

“For me this approach to noise or noisiness, or dirt, or dirtiness, is a way to foreground as you say, an aberrance or perversion of normative message or what we might perceive to be logical reasoning.”

As Jon Cates have mentioned, the addition of noise (glitch), in this case, the breakage of linear narrative, helps to move away from the normality or logical reasoning of what people depict as “perfection“. Further emphasizing the beauty of glitch art in the Menkman, R. (2009) “Glitch Studies Manifesto :

“glitch can reveal a new opportunity, a spark of creative energy that indicates that something new is about to be created


Micro Project 4: Exquisite Glitch

(In collaboration with JJ, Youlmae and Tanya)


We were tasked to take a self-portrait of ourselves, either an image of our face or any part of our body. Thus, I chose to take a photo of my eyes.

First Iteration

And so begins, the glitching process.

As we can see, the first form of glitch was a little subdued with just an addition of what appears to be a filter of small mosaic tiles. I believe that for most of the first iteration was not as exaggerated could be because we were directly editing the original image, thus feeling a little apprehensive about glitching the image. It could also be that we did not want to glitch it too much because we were aware that the image would inevitably go through more layers of glitch.

Second Iteration

In the second iteration, we can see the exaggeration escalate.

This edit, the image was skewed to create a deformed look.

Third Iteration

Things get interesting here. Youlmae decided to try and glitch the image through the audio editing software Audacity.

And this was the result. She decided to export the file as small as possible, thus the image came out really tiny.

Fourth Iteration

I was deciding whether to enlarge the image for the final iteration. However, I embraced glitch and kept it that size. Nonetheless, I added some other filters which created more contrast within the image.

As we can clearly see, the transformation from the first image to the final image was drastic. In the final image, we do not see the slightest resemblance to the first image, it became completely unrecognizable.

Research Critique 2: Micro Project 3

The Walking Story

A collaboration with Chen Jingyi on Facebook Live as a third space.

For a detailed Description of the Walking Story and video, click here.

Two wandering souls, Fizah and Jingyi, enlisted the help of each other to aid in their journey around ADM. Leaving the decision on where we end up to each other, we rely on each other to decide the direction we should take when we come across two paths using a piece of paper with written directional signs (up, down, left, right). The other will respond by performing directional hand gestures.

After five minutes, we stopped in our tracks to reveal where we ended up.


Start: Basement near lift lobby

End: 1st floor at the corner of the locker area

Jing Yi

Start: ADM Library

End: 3rd floor facing the grass patch

Third Space

For Micro-project 3, I felt that we tackled the idea of third space as another form/way to interact and communicate in different geographical location.

This can be seen from MOO (MUD Object Oriented) where it is “focused on social interaction rather than gaming” (Chatzichristodoulou, Maria. Cyposium the Book, (2012)).  Upstage is an example of such third space where audiences attending a live event are able to chat while the performance unfolds.

There are many third spaces out there that allow for communication between people from different places. One such example is video-calling platforms such as Skype, Google Hangout, Tango, etc. To me, a phone call could also be considered a third space if we are looking at it in this context. Considering this, wouldn’t Message, WhatsApp, Telegram be considered as a third space too?

Essentially, third spaces have evolved to become a part of our daily lives without us being aware.

“But most startling is the fact that the third space is simply an integral fact of everyday life in the 21st century. The digital natives have never known another reality, they are the standard bearers of this brave new world.” (Packer, Randall. The Third Space (2012))

Galloway, Kit; Rabinowitz, Sherrie, «Hole in Space», 1980
Photography | © Galloway, Kit; Rabinowitz, Sherrie

The Hole-in-Space, one of the first telematics performance, also showcases how third space is used as a form of communication by connecting people walking past the Lincoln Centre for the Performing Arts (NYC) and The Broadway department store in Century City (LA). These two groups of people were separated from each other by approximately 3,944km, however, the artists “severed the distance between both cities and created an outrageous pedestrian intersection” (Chatzichristodoulou, Maria. Cyposium the Book, (2012)).

Similarly, in the Walking Story, this physical boundary where myself and Jingyi are in different locations are “severed” by both of us being in the same third space (Facebook Live) at the same particular time and communicating through it.

Leaving the decision that may create an impact on your life to someone else may be difficult, scary to some. In the Walking Story, the intensity of the decision is obviously lowered. However, we are put into a situation where we have to subconsciously put our trust in each other to bring us to a location. This creates a sort of intimacy between the both of us. It is like asking a stranger for directions where you have to trust that that stranger is giving you the right direction.


In the beginning, third space was something that I found difficult to comprehend. After going through Micro-Project 3 and readings, I am better able to understand the concept of a third space.


Research Critique 1: Micro Project 2

First Impression (In collaboration with Felicia and Hazel)

Naturally, we get curious about what our first impressions to other people are. It isn’t “socially acceptable” to ask people you just met about their first impression of us, we usually only ask this question once we get to know them a little bit better. However, by then, they would already have forgotten about the first impression or their judgment could be clouded by their current impression they have of you. Thus, we decided to conduct an experiment to ask people we have never met before about their first impression of us.  Generally, the use of art as a way to tackle or bring awareness to social issues in our community has become prominent.

“[…] art has become too narcissistic and self-referential and divorced from social life. I see a new form of participatory art emerging, in which artists engage with communities and their concerns, and explore issues with their added aesthetic concerns“ [34] (Bauwens 2010)


Artists involved:

  1. Felicia – the canvas (the one who will be “judged”)
  2. Fizah – the speaker (the one who will tell people what to do)
  3. Hazel – the videographer (the one who will record people’s reactions)

We begin by asking Felicia what she thinks her first impression is; bubbly, scary. We wanted to make a comparison on her idea of what she thinks versus what others actually think.

After which, we went to the ADM lounge to gather the first impressions. We got the participants to contribute to the artwork by writing their impressions on Felicia’s arms (only at the beginning) and back. We hoped that we could gather a plethora of impressions from different people.

As mentioned in Marc Garrett’s article on D.I.W.O (Do-It-With-Others),

“The practice of DIWO allows space for an openness where a rich mixing of components from different sources crossover and build a hybrid experience.”

Having collected enough impressions, we wrapped up the experiment and shared our findings with the class.

The finished artwork, co-created with our participants


The artwork requires participants’ involvement through writing their first impression of Felicia on her back. In doing so, we (the artists) do not have control over the final outcome of the artwork. We (Hazel and myself) are there to provide instructions to the participant whereas on Felicia’s part she provides them a canvas. The participants have the freedom to respond in whatever way they want. Hence, we have no control over the direction and outcome of our artwork that traditional artists have.

The idea of involving people by allowing them to contribute can also be seen in the artworks discussed such as the Human clock by Craig D. Giffen and the Sheep Market by Aaron Koblin. Without participants’ contributions, the artworks will remain at a standstill without any development.

Similar to Cut Piece by Yoko Ono, we made use of the interaction between participants and artists where the participants were up close with our canvas and had to write on her. Differing from the Please Change Beliefs by Jenny Holzer which is web-based and does not involve physical interaction.

Micro Project 3: The Walking Story (Collaboration with Chen Jingyi)

Posted by Norafizah Normin on Monday, 29 January 2018

The video begins at 2:50

The Walking Story – A collaboration between Fizah & Jingyi

The Walking Story shows 2 wondering souls traveling around a place called ADM. They have enlisted the assistance of each other to aid them in their random journey through a Facebook Live.

As shy souls, we only see their feet as they wander around the school. The two souls begin their journey at different places unbeknown to each other. Using only a piece of paper with helping directions written (up, down, left, right), they ask the other for their opinion on which way they should go on their journey around ADM. The other will respond by performing directional signs only using their hands.

After 5 minutes of endless walking, the two souls stop in their track to reveal where they have ended up with the others direction.



To see where we would end up when you leave the decision on where you should go to someone else.



Start: Basement near lift lobby

End: 1st floor at the corner of the locker area

Jing Yi

Start: ADM Library

End: 3rd floor facing the grass patch

Other Ideas:

We started off by brainstorming ideas of how we should work together in sync. The other idea we had was similar to charades. We will be in different rooms and each takes a turn to give each other things to choose from. For example, someone starts off by saying “winter or summer”, then after 3 seconds, we will both have to say out our choice and try to be in sync with each other. It will gradually get more and more difficult; for example, if we say “love”, we will see if we both could do the same actions associated with “love”.

However, the cons are that there wouldn’t have a “climax” for the game and we are also afraid that the live stream would lag causing a delay in the reaction time by a few seconds.



In the beginning, being unfamiliar with Facebook Live, we were unsure of how to do the split screen. With Lei’s aid, we managed to get back on track. Throughout the journey, I also got worried about losing Wifi connection while walking around. I started the live stream with 58% phone battery and ended with 1%. Thankfully, my phone battery survived for the 5 minutes of filming. It was personally a fun experience and broaden my mind on ways to interact with someone through a live stream.

Jing Yi

Personally, I learn something new cause I seldom use Facebook and even to go live will be a challenge for me. It provides me with a different experience and also we use the third space as an interactive platform to communicate with each other.