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


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.