User:Eleanorg/2.1/Prototypes: Difference between revisions
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
::::Fascinating confusion between subjects occurred: whose words were being spoken and by whom? Was person speaking in agreement with what they were saying aloud? | ::::Fascinating confusion between subjects occurred: whose words were being spoken and by whom? Was person speaking in agreement with what they were saying aloud? | ||
::::How could this exercise be extended so that the filtering is taken to a greater extreme without becoming simply Chinese Whispers? (Q is not: 'will msg arrive intact', but: 'if not, why not?') | ::::How could this exercise be extended so that the filtering is taken to a greater extreme without becoming simply Chinese Whispers? (Q is not: 'will msg arrive intact', but: 'if not, why not?') | ||
* Back & forth | |||
:: >Aim: continue multiple filtering, taking it further by increasing the number of times repeated, swapping between two people. Q: is it boring? Does it change? What does it feel like? | |||
==Other projects== | ==Other projects== | ||
* [[User:Eleanorg/1.3/Dissolute_Image/Code2 | Dissolute Image]] | * [[User:Eleanorg/1.3/Dissolute_Image/Code2 | Dissolute Image]] | ||
Revision as of 16:24, 11 October 2012
Making things. Small things.
Graduate Prototypes
- > Aim: See how ppl respond to the chance to deviate when asked to make a copy of a document
- > Outcome: ppl made harmless remixes, heavily influenced by the tool suggested
- > Assessment:
- Need to introduce some motivation to preserve original vs motivation to change it - controversy/conflict.
- Not so interested in resulting proliferation of 'remixes' - avoids the difficulty of forming consensus.
- > Aim: See how ppl respond to the chance to deviate when asked explicitly to transcribe verbatim, as a favor
- > Outcome: Some did as asked, some made minor alterations, some used as a formal experiment with the medium
- > Assessment:
- More interesting result as each member of group asked to contribute to a greater whole, before seeing it and w/out being held accountable
- Introduction of potentially controversial content provoked more engagement with content - e.g., specific words were changed
- Participants limited to reacting against content chosen by me, rather than by each other.
- (residency): Mic-check writing
- > Aim: See if 'mic check' technique could be used to produce texts (transcription), and how it might affect/reveal group dynamics
- > Outcome: 15 mostly identical hand-written texts and drawings, with minor variations based on individual hearing/judgement
- > Assessment:
- Interesting confusion created as group doubted what to write down; highlighted how more dominant personalities dictated content of the text
- Some used it as a space to make announcements, others poetic gestures/summaries, in absence of a formal group meeting or process
- Would be interesting to treat it like a Bohm dialogue and carry on for longer, challenging group to confront silences/boredom/deeper sharing
- (residency): 'active listening' - transcribing & repeating
- > Aim: Try out counseling techniques in an art context, to generate text based on 'channeling' another person and see how non-counselors respond
- > Outcome: Intimate exchanges (told that counseling techniques 'tamed' tendency to give own opinions); 15 differing texts
- > Assessment:
- Participants enjoyed the exercise, shared openly. Potential for 'abuse' of technique to manipulate didn't materialize in this particular group
- Texts were intimate & revealing but what to do with them?
- Need to adapt exercise to explore the experience of those transcribing - their dilemmas of editing, filtering, getting bored? etc.
- (residency): text filtering through 3 people
- > Aim: Utilize texts from prev exercise; see how ppl react and what effects created when asked to repeat back transcriptions to a large group
- >Outcome: Two performances, in which volunteer had their words dictated back to them from transcription in an earpiece and spoke them to live group.
- > Assessment:
- Fascinating confusion between subjects occurred: whose words were being spoken and by whom? Was person speaking in agreement with what they were saying aloud?
- How could this exercise be extended so that the filtering is taken to a greater extreme without becoming simply Chinese Whispers? (Q is not: 'will msg arrive intact', but: 'if not, why not?')
- Back & forth
- >Aim: continue multiple filtering, taking it further by increasing the number of times repeated, swapping between two people. Q: is it boring? Does it change? What does it feel like?