Research Critique 3 ~ Glitch & The Art of Destruction

the art of styrofoam destruction 

For our micro-project, the art of destruction, Jia Ying, Frederick, Melo and I ‘destroyed’ the original state/shape of these styrofoam pieces that we found in the 3D room. We reused random pieces which previous users had considered as ‘trash’ and transformed it into a new form of creation.

It didn’t matter to us what the original shape was, nor how it would turn out to be. This was our way of embracing inconsistencies and accidents; just by going with the flow of how the heat gun wanted to corrode the styrofoam which turned out it disintegrated slowly into nothing. Through the destruction, the solid state of our styrofoam structure transformed into toxic within the air which we then inhaled 🙂

Through this project, I started to look at the term ‘destruction’ in a different light. With the negative connotation that it tends to hold, this project conveyed examples that demonstrated destruction as another form of construction; something we can choose to look at positively instead of negatively. With reference to the glitch studies manifesto article, Rosa Menkman said, ” I emphasize the positive consequences of these imperfections by showing the new opportunities they facilitate. ” 

final outcome

Relating this project back to our glitch exercise, the intentional ‘bugging’ of something acts as a form of artistic expression by being a “poetic embrace of noise and error”, as quoted by Jon Cates. The glitched images that we created reminded me of abstract art. It pushes us to break the standard rules and boundaries of art that it normally conforms to. “Pushing different aspects o the machine world to see their thresholds, and experiment and play.” Not only were our glitched outcome a form of experimental artistic expression, the process of how it came about to be from person to person allows for every individual’s input.


Research Critique 2 ~ Telematic performance

The third space to me is an infinite space for connection between people. Regardless of where they are, the third space could be defined as “a space with no geological boundaries” (Satellite Arts Project).

An interaction between one another despite being in different locations collapses boundaries in the third space. It involves defying distance similar to what we experimented with in our microproject 2, which is made possible with accessible advanced technology. Although the absence of physical contact may convey a lack of intimacy, I think space in terms or privacy and the scale in which the interaction is occurring in defines closeness.

Paul Sermon, Telematic Dreaming, 1992

A great example of an increase in intimacy through a private space is Sermon’s Telematic Dreaming where two beds are placed in different locations. According to Sermon, ” The ability to exist outside of the users own space and time are created by an alarmingly real sense of touch that is enhanced by the context of the bed.” The interaction with only one other individual will often hold greater intimacy in comparison to a group of people (e.g. Hold in Space)

“Our sense of reality is fragmented and juxtaposed” 

In our own interpretation of a third space, Frederick and I approached it from a two-point perspective where I became his “eyes” as he wandered through the library.

Our collaboration into combining our perceptions into one portrayed on two screens demonstrates connection through the synchronization of our movements simultaneously. The outcome allowed for a journey that cannot be experienced in real life because we were virtually in the same space but physically apart. As Randall Packer says, “this state of shared presence inhabits an entirely new way of seeing via a fracturing perception.”




Research Critique 1 ~ Micro project 2

 Crowdsourced time-based art

Drawing on each of our arms respective to the images that we had

For our micro-project 2, crowdsourced time-based art, the direction that my team went for was to gather a collection of visual reactions through simple, on the spot drawings. With a random image on each of our phones, we set out to people within the vicinity of ADM to ask for their participation. With the limitation of three markers, in the colours red, green and blue, they had the freedom to draw anything they wanted in reaction to the images we showed them.

This crowd-sourced project includes great qualities of D.I.W.O because it involves creation through a community of people. Unlike works that are created by a single artist, a collective artwork enables participants to possible inspire future participants. It allows for constant growth and redefinition of “the final product”. Instead of looking at the final outcome as whats valuable, the process is what tells a story.

“Everyday people are choosing to find their own examples of what they consider to be art, rather than just reading approved promotions by the mainstream press”

This quote from the D.I.W.O article reinforces the versatility of art and how each individual can contribute something uniquely different and hence determining what the outcome becomes.
The work that we created involves social interaction not only between us and the participants but also between the participants themselves. Since there are no limitations to what they can create, we end up with an outcome consisting of various interpretations of the same image. Our group took a more physical approach to the project where not much of technology was involved.

the sheep market, Aaron Koblin

the sheep market

Similarly to the sheep market crowdsourcing project by Aaron Koblin, our project also involves the collection of drawings except not done digitally. Koblin’s  work shows an example of crowdsourcing works breaking the boundaries of “art” and “artists” as anyone can create art. If our group possibly chose our images more strategically, our drawn outcomes could have been more unified.