FINAL LOOK FOR ARTEFACT 2

After managing to salvage my artefact last week, it was more or less done and looked pretty decent compared to all my previous failed experiments. At least for open studios, it was acceptable. With the structure ready, I considered bleaching handprints on the fabric where the ice cream stick would poke through, creating the effect of someone trying to escape. However, this felt too literal and not quite my style, so I was unsure about it. Despite my reservations, I kept an open mind and decided to make a final decision after conducting some user testing and gathering outside opinions.

AN UNINTENTIONAL ADVANTAGE

Throughout consultations, Andreas and I had discussed the possibility of incorporating sound into my interaction, but I kept pushing it back. It wasn't that I didn't want to use sound, but rather I didn't know how to implement it, and I wasn't particularly keen on the idea. Fortunately, the servo motors themselves produced a sound, and when three servo motors operated at different intervals, it created a screeching noise that aligned perfectly with my concept. This unexpected outcome turned out to be an added bonus for my artefact.

VISUAL IMAGERY AND REFERENCES

Now that my artefact is complete, the visual imagery and the references I used only strengthen my concept in my opinion. The line I'm referencing for this artefact is "Hell is murky" by Lady Macbeth, and I've also drawn inspiration from a painting by Henry Fuseli, "Lady Macbeth Seizing the Daggers" from 1812. The main idea was to create something that embodies Lady Macbeth as a person. Throughout the play, she is portrayed as an ambitious yet manipulative woman whose greed knows no bounds. She has accepted that she is destined for hell, so she owns up to her wrongdoings. With this artefact, I want viewers to envision how she might appear in hell—whether she's trying to escape or trying to intimidate others—that's open to the viewers' interpretation.

ROUNDTABLE

I signed up for a roundtable session feeling a lot more relieved and prepared, as I had completed my artefact before the session. This time, my consultation was with Vikas and Shu Min. Since Shu Min hadn't interacted with my project before, I provided her with some context. She made a thought-provoking point about my artefact 1 (the interactive painting), mentioning that while the context and narrative were present, it felt somewhat forced, leaving too much for the viewer to visualize. Instead, she suggested approaching the artefact from a spatial and scene perspective. She proposed that I could frame the narrative of this artefact as a reimagining of the first scene where the three witches are concocting their potion before meeting Macbeth. She noted that the presentation of my artefact resembled the idea of creating one's own "concoction," using metaphors rather than explicitly stating "the three witches corrupting Macbeth's mind."

She also suggested it would benifit me if I named my artefacts seperately instead of calling them artefact 1,2 and 3.

MAKING ARTEFACT 3

Completing artefact 2 was a huge relief for me because initially, I had no clear vision of what I wanted from it. However, with this artefact, I had a solid plan and a clear goal in mind. I aimed for it to feature a camera-based interaction that would generate intriguing shadows and reflections.

REFRENCING STEPHEN KNAPP & MOHOLY-NAGY

While researching for my dissertation, I stumbled upon Stephen Knapp's work, where he creates light paintings using iridescent glass. His process, involving trial and error to craft the structure, fascinated me, prompting me to explore similar techniques. Additionally, I delved into Moholy-Nagy's creations, especially his focus on light and kinetic movement for the stage. His approach to incorporating kinetic lighting in performances intrigued me, prompting further exploration into dynamic lighting concepts.

EXPERIMENTING AND LASERCUTTING

I didn't have a set plan for this initially, as creating shadows involves a lot of trial and error. My approach was to first determine how the interaction would function, leading to the generation of kinetic movement. Opting for a camera-based interaction, I needed to find a sensor that would trigger this movement. Given my previous experiments with servo motors, I was confident in my ability to manipulate them to achieve the desired kinetic effect.

I aimed to replicate something similar to the video, but I soon discovered that servo motors lacked the strength for a pull-up-and-down movement. Additionally, I lacked the skills needed to achieve this effect. Consequently, I had to adjust my approach accordingly.

WORKING WITHOUT A CONCEPT SKETCH?!

Feeling very bold, I opted to work without a concept sketch and relied solely on trial and error. I proceeded to laser cut glass into small squares and obtained iridescent acrylic sheets for experimentation.

it was my first time laser cutting so I was very excited but at the same time I was praying that I don't mess it up because iridescent sheets costed me a lot and I just had 2 of them and I was also working without a plan so......

Feeling spontaneous, I conducted a small experiment that intrigued me. Despite the servo's somewhat abrupt movement, I saw potential in this experiment. I proceeded to cut acrylic sheets for further experimentation. I crafted a circle and square of the same dimensions, along with rectangles matching the squares' height. This setup would allow me to create a stand for the circle, place the iridescent acrylic sheet on top, and insert a light source in the middle, activated by camera-based interaction.

FINAL LOOK FOR ARTEFACT 3

She also suggested it would benifit me if I named my artefacts seperately instead of calling them artefact 1,2 and 3.

NAMING MY ARTEFACTS

Just days before open studio, I needed to name my artefacts for the name tags. Naming isn't my strong suit, so I enlisted Medha's help. She graciously assisted me in coming up with fitting names for each artefact, considering their context. Artefact 1 became "The Three Witches," Artefact 2 was dubbed "Damnation," and Artefact 3 took on the name "Anatomy of a Play." I find these names to be quite self-explanatory.

MY DOWNFALL BEFORE OPEN STUDIO!

it is not possible that things go in my favour, as soon as I fix one issue I have another one ready for me. Despite successfully fixing one issue with my artefact, I encountered another hurdle. I struggled to connect my Arduino to Teachable Machines for the camera-based interaction I had planned. Although all the coding was in place, I couldn't establish the connection, no matter what I tried. It seemed like a Bluetooth problem, but I couldn't pinpoint the exact issue. And this was a day before open studio too!!

In a moment of quick thinking, I pivoted my approach. After talking with Yishan, I decided to switch from a camera-based interaction to a sound-based one. I purchased a sound sensor and connected it to my light and servo. Now, instead of reacting to visual cues, the artefact responded to sound stimuli, such as clapping or talking. This adjustment required me to align my concept with the technicalities of stage design and the nuances of theatrical etiquette regarding sound levels and cues, while also drawing heavily from the influence of Moholy-Nagy.