Final Project — Limbo

1. Limbo

Description

Limbo is an interactive space and a journey that invokes the idea of recurrence among cancer patients and portrays the inevitability and ambiguity of their eventual delirium and death due to sickness in a clinical way. It comprises of a start, middle and end. Start: where everyone approaches a clinical and minimalistic set up with detailed and specific instructions. They queue up and go step by step, making it methodical and prescribed. This is symbolic of hospital visits. They clean their hands, and wear masks. Middle: When tester wears isolation suit, he or she is stripped of their identity and becomes a patient while everyone else with their mask on become voyeurs (Doctors, nurse, friends, family). When they put on wig and look in the mirror, reflection is fragmented/distorted and flatline emits after a standard heart rate. Shrill sound of flatline forces ‘patient’ to remove ‘liberating wig’ exposing their scars while everyone else is relieved that sound has stopped. Enforces the idea of accepting death. End: eased out by disposing of props in trash can.

2. Inspiration

Statistics

The following table shows the relatively significant and high recurrence rate.

Source: https://www.cancertherapyadvisor.com/home/tools/fact-sheets/cancer-recurrence-statistics/

Personal Thoughts

I have relatives and close friends who have experienced the loss of someone because of cancer. Psychologically it is a disease that not only affects the victim but their close ones as well. Many of them told me that as much as they were sad when their loved ones passed in the final stages, they were relieved to watch their pain come to an end. The final stages of cancer, coupled with the strong doses of painkillers such as Fentanyl, causes one to hallucinate and lose their identity. They become unrecognisable physically and mentally fragmented. The only pieces left of them lie in the hearts and the minds of their loved ones — Only the audience could see the clear face of the tester/patient — patient was only able to see their reflection through the fragmenting mirror. Hence this was the overall sentiment and ‘vibe’ I wanted our interactive piece to emanate. It was important that not only the tester was involved.

“Delirium is the most common sign of medical complications of cancer or cancer treatment affecting the brain and mind. It is a common problem for people with advanced cancer or those at the end of life.” — https://www.cancer.net/coping-with-cancer/physical-emotional-and-social-effects-cancer/managing-physical-side-effects/mental-confusion-or-delirium

3. Ideation Process

1.Degrading Mirror

Body Dysphoria, Using a wig that emits male guttural noises when worn. To induce body dysphoria. We realised that this was too niche of a topic to evoke and many would not be able to relate to it, making it seem contrived.

2.THINNING Mirror

Second idea was to use a mirror that would make whoever who looked into it feel like they’re perpetually sick. Incorporated with a wig that emits heart beat followed by a flatline. We wanted to use a concave mirror for this. However sourcing for one was extremely hard and we felt like we could narrow it down further. We also decided to use a pixie cut wig instead so that it would be more androgynous and inclusive.

3.Distortion Mirror

Final Idea that translated into ‘Limbo’ was a fragmented mirror in which a person’s reflection, looked from any angle would always be fragmented. We used a plain mirror form but altered it and guised it in a vanity table set up. We also expanded the interaction to include a beginning to ease the testers and voyeur audience into the interaction ‘space’ and ‘psyche’. Wig would be triggered upon wearing and would beep for 5 seconds before flatlining for two minutes straight unless removed. We wanted this to be reminiscent of people with cancer who have to visit hospitals time after time for surgery all while constantly preparing for a relapse even after recovery. The wig which is liberating object for them, then becomes a dark object since whenever it is put on, it reminds them of their possible death rather than injecting a sense of hope or life into them. Complemented by the mirror which reflects the delirium cancer patients go through during their final moments.

4. Instructional

Physical Set Up:

Pre-Installation Interaction (Start)

Materials Needed:
Hand Sanitiser
Surgical Mask
Isolation Gown
Instructional Signs

Steps:
1. Buy medical supplies from a walk in medical supply store.
2. Set up a convincing clinical and minimalistic table set up. Orderly and cold. Lay out in a line, equidistant to condition audience’s mind to think of queuing up when admitting to hospital.

3. Sanitiser with signs. (Pump 3X thoroughly) Specify number to bring out the idea of prescriptions and steps. Prepare clear clinical like instructions.

4. Mask (Involves voyeur in interaction, discomfort not only for tester but for audience), apart from discomfort from interaction, tester will also be surrounded by everyone else with masks on.
5. Tester will have to put on an isolation gown before proceeding to interact with the main object. This is to ensure the identity of the tester is stripped away for the duration of interaction.

Installation Interaction (Main)

Materials Needed:
Vanity Mirrors
Photo Frame
Storage Box
Trash Bags
Stand
Mounting Tape
Glue Gun

Steps:
1. Buy items from hardware store or relevant beauty shop. Buy isolation gown from medical supply store.
2. To create Topographic, Fragmented and 3D mirror, buy separate pieces of mirrors. Seal them in a tight plastic bag or protector. Use hammer and hit hard to shatter the glass into small pieces. Lay out pieces.

3. Detach Photo frame backing and lay out first layer of glass pieces to form a flat layer of support. Use glue gun to secure heavy pieces. Layer slowly and build up with different heights to achieve intended areas of concavity or convexity. Use fabric as a filler and support to hold denser areas of layers.
4. Finish with photo frame. Use pliers to secure heavy mirror piece. Glue gun to ensure further support. Mount the back with strong mounting tape and mount on the wall
5. Place Necklace stand directly in front of mirror.
6. Place storage box beside with laptop and circuit beside table. Line with trash bag to conceal circuit. Instruct testers to throw gowns and mask into bin as away of stepping out of interaction space and also to enhance discretion of circuit and appliances.

Arduino and WIg (Main)

Materials:
Wig
Arduino
Photocell
Bread Board
Resistor
Processing App
Speaker
Needle, Thread
Soldering Kit
Thin Wires

Steps:
1. Buy androgynous wig with lining
2. Buy long wires, at least 2.5 metre to give allowance for tallest possible tester. Use thin wires to make set up more sleek.
3. Solder Wire to each end of photocell and set up circuit as shown below.

4. Thread wire ends to photocell legs to secure and prevent breakage. Thread photocell onto lining of wig to hide it.

5. Arduino Code — Use low threshold to prevent wig from emitting sound before intended interaction

6. Processing Code

7. Upload Arduino Code then press run on Processing
8. Leave all items in the storage box and proceed to hide.
9. Place wig on necklace stand

10. Let interaction begin

5. User Tests

Body Storming

(Read Micro Project Post)

Testing Code

6. Final Interaction

Interaction

Feedback

7. Reflection

Observations

All the testers were compelled to remove the wig relatively quickly due to the high pitch sound of the flatline. They were wary of annoying the rest of the audience and were troubled by the sound itself. However upon viewing the interaction I realised that maybe forcing them into this choice of removing the wig, was ‘too easy’.

Improvements

Incorporate a sensor within the wig that heats up upon wearing. However upon removal, it starts beeping and then flatlines. This would be symbolic of burning or heat and hence death/cremation. And it would then cause a conflict where users would have to decide if they wanted to let their scalp be uncomfortable and hot or let the shrilling sound play. This is symbolic of the idea of having a choice to go for chemo or other form of therapies yet still facing the high possibility of recurrence — No matter what they choose it will still lead to a ‘negative’ outcome.

April 3, 2019April 3, 2019

Project Development — Body Storming (Body Dysmorphic Disorder)

1. Set Up

2. Interaction

3. Reflections

1. What did you learn from the process?

Jess

I have learnt that our work might not have the same effect in the two different genders and might be inefficient when conveying our messages.

Prav

Initially when we told to make a cardboard prototype for the body storming process I was honestly a little sceptical of its necessity. I didn’t see the need to do so till I went through the process of it and understood its importance for our final piece. It was a test run that allowed us to pick up on any potential weak links or loopholes in our object that could affect our interaction on the actual day itself. I learnt that it was crucial to take into account all 5 senses when making our work because as humans we are not trained to isolate them from one another. As such, when approaching our work all 5 senses of our tester were engaged and simultaneously too. If our main form of interaction was to be through hearing or sight then we had to provide a kind of sensory hierarchy within our work itself so as not to confuse our audience. In our instructions we wrote to smell and feel the ‘wig’ before putting it on. However during the interaction we learned that the touching element was unnecessary and confusing. Sometimes it is better to target specific senses that relate to our topic of design noir than to try to engage all senses with the same intensity. We learned that we had to reign our concepts in and distill them down to make it more focused and targetted. I also learned that during the actual interaction itself we would have zero control over our audience and as such the work had to be as self explanatory as possible. We also learned that the impact of our uncomfortable wig may differ according to the gender/sexual orientation of the person wearing it. Though initially I felt like this may be something we had to address, I personally feel that each person has their own ways of feeling discomfort and we do not necessarily have to try to make everyone feel the same thing. In some sense an object that could self adapt itself and be versatile enough to incite discomfort in all kinds of people is stronger than one that only works on certain type of people.

2. What surprised you while going through the process?

Jess

I was surprised that the tester actually able to kinda know what to do and know our intentions of the work.

Prav

What surprised me most was the level of discomfort and intrigue displayed by our tester from the moment she interacted with our object. I did not think we were going to get that much of a reaction from our prototype. She was visibly intrigued from the start when she could not stop sniffing the object. And also shocked when the male moaning sounds were emitted when the wig was put on. However she also said she felt confused. Surprisingly she more or less also managed to figure out on her own what he main intent of our work was – body dysphoria and to make people feel uncomfortable in their own skin. Another surprising reaction was her reluctance to disengage with the object completely despite her shock and discomfort. She kept wanting to sniff the pleasant and flowery scent of the YSL fragrance we had doused the wig in. This to me was a potential area we could work on to further strengthen our final interactive piece.

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

jess

I think we can make our work more catered to the two genders like separately: eg. instead of wig it can be female and male underwear.

prav

After the interaction, during the critique from our peers we understood that the effect may not be constant throughout all orientations. Someone mentioned that if it was a gay person and they heard the moaning sounds, it may be more pleasant as opposed to our initial concept that if a male person wore it, it would question their masculinity. We failed to take into account the diversity of the demographics that exist within our audience and that is something we had to adjust. Though someone suggested designing two separate objects for the Two different genders, I personally feel that making one object that would affect the two separate genders equally would be more effective and powerful. For our final interaction we will be using a full frontal mirror with a modified and maybe more androgynous wig with the focus on the sound and smell. We also understood that the shock element of the moaning was too abrupt and resulted in an ambiguous state for the tester, after it was played. We will have to create a proper and gradual arc – start, a moment of breath before the sound, gradual increase in intensity/discomfort of the sound, and ending of interaction. I would want to incorporate the reluctance our tester displayed in leaving our interaction, into our final piece. However we had to make the journey of the interactivity itself smooth first.

March 27, 2019

Research Critique — Suicide Box/Design Noir

Design Noir according to Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, is part of a contemporary yet forward approach towards Design. It is ‘avant grade’ and controversial in the way it challenges the mass production mindset that the industry has etched in the minds of many designers. However it is not just ‘weird’ for the sake of wanting to be recognised as a sub cultural movement – it rides on familiar objects that mass people have a pre existing relation to and harnesses the advancement of technology, to produce relevant objects that critique the current state of society or design. It provides an alternate space for a paradigm of multi realities to exist by rejecting the idea of one physical reality. They argue for the push of this sort of art as it is important for the sustainability and credibility of the creative power we possess as designers. When one has the avenue to mass audience and hence the chance to ‘mass produce’ subversion, they should utilise it to destabilise capitalist mindsets instead of falling back into designing within the restrictions and motivations of the ‘marketplace’. Many creative agencies only employ provocative or controversial projects as a ‘testament’ to their creativity in the form of prototype objects. However within their modus operandi, these ideas are never seriously entertained or tackled. They become a far fetched imagined reality.

In line with this, Natalie created Bureau of Inverse Technology (BIT) — a self made fictional corporation run by essentially herself. It acted as a front to legitimately conceptualise experimental products that would be taken seriously – not just as explorations by an individual artist. According to Dunne and Raby, it is ‘more sinister’ when an organisation engages in a set of subversive works. Suicide Box is one key ‘product’ that was conceptualised in its time as a critical design work. It involved placing a motion detector and video camera near the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco to track vertical movements in its frames – its aim to capture the moment every time someone tried to jump down from the bridge. A ‘engineering report’ was post produced to suggest how Suicide Box could be harnessed to ‘calculate a robust and and market responsive value of life’. This slightly invasive and desensitised approaches towards documenting suicide as an empirical factor (rate of suicide) (see Image 1.), makes it a ‘box’ that measures the rate of suicide over time. It takes the guise of a mass produced form of high technology (motion sensor camera) with underlying dark undertones. It’s function does not change. It works the same way an industry based motion sensor might be used to calculate the number of rain drops falling per hour. However it explores an uncharted and alternate reality that before this was not seen as a viable medium for this particular technology.

This hence falls under critical design to show the industry that technology and everyday products can be employed to greater and deeper use if one were to view it not just as a money making piece of hardware but as some sort of archetypal object. It relates back to how Dunne and Raby in their article argue that it is necessary to pursue and ‘realise’ unpopular design due to the implications popular design have for both us as designers and society in the future. Unpopular Design, unlike Popular Design, rejects the idea of a fixed reality and proposes the blurring of the conceptual and real. It is capable making the conceptual more ‘real’ to consumers while at the same time pushing for the ideology of multi realities that should be explored and reflected through design.

Image 1.

March 20, 2019

Micro Project 4 — Disobedient Objects

1. CONCEPT

Initial Sense

Jess and I both decided to use an object of controversy or something that people would already have an innate sense of discomfort towards.

Object — BRA

Sensor — PHOTOCELL

2. PROCESS

Arduino

We decided to use a photocell as a very direct and effective method to activate the LED Bulbs. However we had to determine the most effective threshold such that the nipple areas would not prematurely light up or not light at all. We settled on a range on 100 to 300. After a few trials, we decided to use threshold : 150.

Construction

As our final prototype required many wires connected to the Arduino Uno and from multiple directions, we decided to sew the wires into in the hem line of the bra itself. We then taped the wire cluster of each component together to prevent entangling. We also pierced the LED Bulbs through the fabric of the bra itself to avoid damaging the bra. We wanted to ensure that the circuits were as well concealed as possible to ‘convince’ our participants of the legitimacy of our wearable prototype.

3. Presentation

Concealment/Portability

Given the nature of our object as a wearable item, we had to conceal any visible circuits as much as possible and also ensure its portability and ease of usage. Hence instead of using a laptop, we uploaded our file onto Arduino Uno and connected it to a portable charger. We then fit the breadboard and most of the extended circuit into a small Coach bag. During critique, we instructed our testers to sling the bag on their wrists while they wore the bra. The use of this complementary womenswear accessory added to the legitimacy of our prototype.

Critique

4. Reflections

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

Jess:

For our disobedient object, Praveen and I wanted to make the participants uncomfortable. The purpose of the bra is to conceal the nipples of a female. We wanted to change this and make it enhance the nipples instead when you put the bra on. The nipple areas will light up when the participants try to put it on, making their “light nipples” really obvious and bright red. it’s is kind of a protest product to “free the nipples” for the females.

prav:

Most people would slander someone for exposing their beasts or nipples in public. Movements such as free the nipple has also gained flak due to a certain censorship expected of women. The bra is often used as an object that conceals and supports the feminine torso. To even walk out in daylight in ‘just a bra’ seems preposterous to many in society. Hence by subverting this object into one that draws attention to the most censored area/or area that calls for the need for most censorship; the nipples, it becomes disobedient. It becomes a proud and ‘in your face’ object that screams social protest and defiance. To walk with a lit bra with flashing nipples would be equivalent to Hester Prynne with her Scarlet Letter embossed on her chest. The use of a naturally provocative colour, red, further enhances our subversion. Hence anyone who wears this bra does not conceal but covets and ‘reveals’ instead. It is also disobedient in the sense that one who wears one would be probably labelled as a transgression in society.

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

Jess:

Some looked really uncomfortable when the nipples got lit on when they tried to put the bra on. This actually reinforce our purpose of the disobedient object which is to make the participants feels uncomfortable when they put on the bra which was suppose to cover up their nipples and make them feel “more comfortable” with their body.

prav:

The interaction is uncomfortable due to two main different forms of interaction. The first is the users’ personal interaction with the object itself – as no ‘warning’ is given and they are only instructed to wear the bra, they won’t know what to expect. As we set the threshold for the photocell to as low as possible, the bulbs only lit up once it is tightly clasped around their chest. In other words, by the time they realise their nipples are lit, it would be too late for them to try to remove it or hesitate putting it on. Hence by eliminating the choice factor this way, we are in a sense forcing them to reach the full interaction. Most people were willing to volunteer as the object looked pretty mundane and normal. But once they picked it up and started wearing it, their choice to stop the interaction was taken away from them till it was ‘over’. This makes it uncomfortable as their freedom of choice is removed. Discomfort also occurs due to the prototype subverting its original purpose of concealment. However we also realised that after clasping the bra for awhile, the users seemed nonchalant and almost intrigued by its ‘flagrance’. Maybe it is due to fact that we all have some sort of inner desire to be hedonistic or to immerse in objects of ‘taboo’ once in awhile.

Another level of uncomfortable interaction came from the audience – user interaction. As the bra lit up, the audience saw it before the user did — the user had to look down to realise their nipples were lit. Hence many of em were taken aback when the rest of the class started laughing or getting excited as they weren’t sure what the commotion was about. Hence this brief moment of ambiguity and where the tester is almost being made into a object of public scrutiny leads to the second level of discomfort from this interaction.

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

Jess:

Our circuit actually kept short circuiting which was really annoying because we need to replace the bulbs and see it again. To get over this problem, we tried to add in fuses and connect the bulbs in parallel circuit so that when one bulb blows, the other will not be affected. However, another problem is the portability of the bra. Even though we switched using the laptop as a power supplier to a portable charger, there was still a lot of wires handing around. Hence i think that we could make like an additional pouch onto the bra to keep all the wires and portable charger to make it even more portable.

Prav:

The first challenge was the brittle nature of the led pins. As we wanted to minimise damage to the fabric, we had to push the pin through the cups and bend it accordingly. However the pins broke and we had to be more gentle. The second main challenge was that our circuit kept short circuiting and causing one of the two led bulbs to overheat and burn. We then decided to add a resistor parallel to the first, to lower the current flowing through. This was a challenge as it took us a few trials to figure this solution – the LED bulbs only burnt after a few times of plugging into power. The last challenge was portability and concealment of the circuit. As we had a significant amount of wires attached to our relatively small and thin object- the bra, we had to figure out how to hide most of the circuit as much as possible. Even though we managed to attain a successful level of portability (details mentioned in previous part of post), we realised that we could have pushed the legitimacy of the object further if we had made an external wearable pouch to hide the remaining wires.

February 13, 2019February 13, 2019

Micro Project 3 — Together Split

SPLIT SCREEN

Concept

We decided to produce a whimsical take on the stages in life — birth, growing up and marriage, particularly. It is essentially a sped up, comical caricature of birth to adulthood within 30seconds. We also decided to keep it cyclical, in line with the overarching concept of ‘life’. As such, the viewer is guided in an anticlockwise direction as the split frames unravel one by one. This proved to be effective as viewers would only have to dedicate their attention to each frame as the narrative unfolds, as opposed to focusing on all four splits of the screen at once. Taking into account our inherent preference to not multi-task, and our intent to depict a cyclical process of progressive life events, this was the best approach for our group.

Link to Video : https://youtu.be/xBFrMJK8Dho

Video Flow

The video flows anti-clockwise, starting from the bottom right screen.

1. It starts with Jess, a pregnant woman in labour, thrusting out a baby. Her facial expression is exaggerated to contribute to the comical aspect.

2. Starts crawling out into the second frame to transition from babyhood to early childhood.

3. She then stands up, and Feriga’s head pops up in the third frame. This is representative of the transition from childhood to teenage hood. The synchronisation between the two frames here create a comical caricature of a cartoon like human figure.

4. They both then walk towards the left, in sync and exit from their frames.

5. LX’s torso and my legs then emerge together as we walk in sync leftwards. This is the transition to adulthood. The mismatch between the two bodies continue the caricature element in the previous frames.

6. LX then drops a ring which falls ‘down’ back into the first frame on Jess’s fingers. Transitioning from adulthood to marriage.

By starting from the first frame, proceeding in a clear consistent visual directional flow, consistency in synchronisation and mismatch of bodies, and ending back at the first frame, we managed to create our intended outcomes. Even though there were parts where the mismatch was not spot on, we were satisfied with the overall result.

Location

We shot this outside B1 lift area. Initially we tried doing it at separate locations but quickly realised due to both technical glitches and the distance, that coordinating with each other within the given time frame was too time consuming. Hence we decided to shoot it at a common area with each of our phones facing a different direction to still achieve the split screen effect. It was important that the screens itself were kept separate to ensure the desired outcome.

Challenges

The main challenge for this Micro Project was coordination and cooperation. Initially we kept retaking our videos as each person was trying to take their cues from the previous person. However eventually Jess took over to allocate positions and delegated roles clearly while I cued the timing. Even though this was a shared project, it was really important to have a leading figure to manage to overall flow of the work. Conceptualisation was split between all 5 of us. However execution could not have all 5 people shouting out directions or taking directions from their own instincts. Having an overarching ‘director’ was key.

REFLECTIONS

overarching thoughts

I personally believe that theses two types of control differ in each project. Some allowed for very clear personal control over the content while others allowed for more overall ‘creative control’ in a sense where every creator had an equal amount of control while not diminishing that of another. However the latter results in no sole control of the resulting content.

Creative Control

Personally I feel that Project 1 had allowance for the most creative control. As it was based on a public hashtag on Instagram, arguably everyone had equal creative control as we could essentially post anything we wanted to. There were no external regulators or moderators to alter the content. The creators themselves determine the outcome of the alternate space created under the hashtag #1010adm. This project also had zero barriers to entry — our followers including those not from ADM, could choose to utilise the same hashtag to hack or disrupt the page. However personal control over content is diluted due to the accessibility of this space.

Unpredictability

In terms of having the most unpredictable outcome, I would say it was Project 2. In Project 2, me and my team mate Jess, had absolute control over our concept and choice of platform — Grindr. We were our own regulators in a sense where we could choose how and who we wanted to reply or initiate conversations with. However the outcome was highly determined by the other users. It all fell back on the users’ discretion. We did try to influence certain outcomes by nudging or luring them towards a certain direction. However in some cases they went in the completely opposite direction. Most of the messages were also spontaneous and we barely initiated any of them. As such I believe this social experiment had the most unpredictable outcome — which is important given that our intent was to document and collate unbiased results to dissect our chosen concept.

DIWO & Open Source

Project 3 illustrates DIWO the most in my opinion. Personally I am someone who loves portraying darker and more ironic content. Comedy is the last type of genre I would intentionally choose to explore. However I had to make this compromise in Project 3 as the rest of my group mates wanted to do something comical. As such in the initial conceptualisation stages itself, I had to put aside my personal creative direction to DIWO. This then forced me to think out of my comfort zone and to also take cues from the rest instead. It required everyone to cooperate in order to produce a smooth transitioning split screen video. However regarding Open Source, I believe Project 1 illustrates that the best. It being the most accessible, as mentioned earlier, literally makes it an open space for anyone to alter or influence.

ConclusioN

Overall, the Projects gave me a clearer and first hand understanding of these seemingly obscure and ‘new’ concepts. It also makes us realise that these concepts are mutually exclusive nor do they exist as discrete entities. Their potency, accessibility and fluidity all reflect the demographics of the alternate realities that exist in virtuality.

January 30, 2019

Micro Project 2 — Crowd-Sourced Art

1. INITIAL CONCEPTUALISATION

Concept

Exploring Anonymity, Privacy, Pleasure and Threshold. These were the concepts we were able to explore and alter through our Crowd Sourced Art

Aim

Before we jumped right into any of the social media platforms on our phones, we took a step back. We wanted to keep the social experiment/art as ‘real’ as possible. We did not want to have to let our audience know we needed participation nor explicitly suggest that it was an art piece. We also did not want to compromise the authenticity of the work and hence decided to utilise a platform that was in line with our vision. This was to try to achieve our intended outcome as best as possible.

Platform:

We decided to use the popular/notorious Gay Dating App, Grindr as our Social Media platform. The demographics of the platform would allow us to explore the concepts we wanted to with quick interaction, given our 60mins time frame, to start and conclude our experiment. It also would not require us to solicit help from our peers to participate.

2. PROCESS

Set Up

We set up a ‘fake’ profile using a picture of Jessical’s friend (with his permission) using the tag line – fun (a slang for sex in the homosexual community) . We also added the visible bio (actually I’m only 15…). Given that the legal age in Singapore for consensual sex is 16, we wanted to test how many people would still approach our profile and solicit sex from an underage teen.

Approach

We did not initiate any of the conversations and decided to leave it ‘floating’, waiting for other users to message first
We only uploaded one picture and disclosed no personal info to emphasise on anonymity
In every conversation that was initiated we emphasised on the age issue by directly asking the user if they were okay w the age. This was to remind them of the legality and morality surrounding it
For those that eventually turned us down, we wanted to see if we could convince them to say yes
We also wanted to test how far people would be willing to reveal (personal info, pics etc) just for the momentary hope or indulgent pleasure that they may be able to hook up with a good looking person despite having only our profile pic as the one information they had

3. RESULTS/OUTCOMES

We segregated the responses into those who said yes and agreed or wanted to solicit underage sex knowingly, and those who rejected us with the same knowledge in mind

YES

The above people all seemed shocked about the profile’s supposed underage status and were apprehensive initially. However without any prompting they went ahead still.

No (BUt YES?

These were the users whose threshold we managed to ‘push’. These were the group of people whom initially seemed shocked but with just a little convincing, their mindset seemed to completely change.

No

These users were very clear about their stance and consistently turned the profile down despite advances.

Interesting Response

This particular user acknowledged the legal and moral issue but seemed to justify that since the act of engaging in homosexual sex itself is illegal, doing so with an underage person was acceptable, given the premise of the app’s interface and purpose.

4. ANALYSIS

Commitment vs Rewards

We realised that the reward in this case for users was a prized sexualised object that was just too ‘within reach’ to resist. Most of them were willing to divulge personal information and pictures just because we were dangling a carrot (an illusionary one too) before their eyes. There was also no form of tangible commitment needed. Hence the potential rewards were enticing enough.

Consequence

The consequence in actuality for soliciting of underage sex is punishable by law. Yet many didn’t seem flinched or bothered by it. Maybe the protection of being a profile behind a screen gives people the power to exercise and indulge indirectly. After all a profile can be deleted. One does not directly feel or bear the consequence unless they are reported.

Choice

All users had the choice to say and send what they wanted to us. We did not force or instruct them to do so. In fact we reminded them about the potential consequence of their choices

Control

Though we did not directly control their actions, we intervened and influenced them with our tone such that it appealed to the specific characteristic of the stereotypical user of the app.

As artists we had full control over our piece but no control over the outcome that was essentially still determined by the autonomy of the user in the end.

Role of Creator

Being a fake profile, there was the issue of ethical behaviour at the back of our heads as artists. There were moments we did feel a tinge of guilt for ‘baiting’ the users. However in the bigger picture, many fake profiles do exist and were simply utilising a temporary one. We did not disclose the personal info that were shared (pictures, address, linked SM accounts). We also made the choice not to let the users know they were part of a social artwork, but simply deleted the profile after the timeframe.

5. Conclusion

Anonymity gave us the power to be an alternate persona with its own reality on the platform we used. It allowed us to explore the concepts we wanted to, effectively and in an unbiased manner. However we also needed some pre existing knowledge about the community, to navigate the conversations that were initiated.

6. Art?

Our collective piece served as a social commentary on privacy and anonymity in today’s world where virtual reality is an entity with its own rules. It is a documentation of spontaneous responses that illustrates the above mentioned alternate reality. Most of the things during this interaction would not happen in physical reality. To some extent we have to agree that this might be due to the ‘extreme’ nature of the platform. On other general SM sites like Instagram and Facebook, people do not usually exercise such voracity and boldness.

January 23, 2019

Micro Project 1 — Creating the Third Space

SPACE

Space to me is simply an indiscrete state of existence in which its boundaries are either limited by or expanded by our physical/emotional/mental interaction with it.

PHYSICAL SPACE

For my physical space, I decided to document and explore overlooked elements in a common public place – the sunken plaza. We often populate and interact in spaces without noticing the details and unique qualities of the inanimate objects that may occupy them.

I wanted to highlight these details through close-up shots. By magnifying their proportions, I imbue them with individuality and a glaring presence — as opposed to how we treat them daily.

I also wanted to portray the concept of distortion in the space within these physical objects themselves — the warped reflection in the water (Image 5), frosted reflection of lightbulb cover (Image 4) , view of ADM facade through stained plastic cover of socket (Image 2) etc. Hence, depending on the way we treat these objects, they may have the power to alter our visual perception of a greater physical space.

Instead of simply being objects in the physical space, they now have become obscure entities that also lead us into another reality.

Virtual Space

We had to use the hashtag #1010adm which in itself propagates a virtual space where all our pictures are uploaded and viewed publicly.

Most of the pictures taken were somewhat recognisable. Hence my initial instinctual response was to create a series that would be visually unrecognisable while still originating from the same physical space (ADM) that everyone had to create their posts from.

This would make other viewers question the fidelity of my images, juxtaposed with the other ones within this virtual space. In some sense it creates a smaller, obscure space within a shared space.

The shared space is accessible to anyone from in and out of ADM. Anyone who decides to intentionally or blindly utilise the same hashtag will be able to influence this alternate space easily. It is a fluid entity that is constantly changing even with the interaction of a single individual.

Process:

1— The first few participants form the beginning and ‘common definition’ of this shared space.

2 — Later participants are then able to view this posts and choose how (and if), they want to react to the already established explorations of spaces in ADM.

3 — There is no defined ending to this process as it is a free floating alternate space. Anyone who uses the #1010adm will be able to turn this shared space into literally anything. The limits are boundless as there are no external moderators. Everyone has the autonomy to include what they want.

Physical + Virtual

From this task, I learned how I could give a physical space new reality by having it manifested and archived in a virtual space – where realities are what individuals determine it to be.

For example, physically my lightbulb is just a bulb. However in the virtual space of #1010adm, it’s obscurity and ambiguity is a cause for question and pondering.

In some sense I’m forcing people to interact directly with these objects they wouldn’t be up close to or notice in physical reality.

In this image of the lightbulb, one user, not part of the participants in the #1010adm, commented that it ‘looks like alien teeth’.

Conclusion

These are some questions I hope to trigger through this micro project : ‘Was this really taken in ADM’ ‘If so what is it? Where is it from?’ ‘What is ADM?’