Unfortunately we had a bit of a disagreement in where we were going to go next with our project – partly because we weren’t really communicating effectively as a team. I left the workshop quite upset at the conclusion of the class, about ready to give up and work solo. I spoke to Jo and Matt, though, and they urged me to give it another go – so I did.
The group and I had some very different ideas of how to experiment; I wanted to work more with multi-sensory lights, lines, colours, and general mind-bending – staying true to the original project, keeping the playfulness of the interaction we’d created. However, the boys wanted to move on to optical illusions and imagery. We decided to work on that next week and continued what we were doing today.
What we ended up doing this week was working with lines instead. I’d spent the lesson creating something very similar to what we did last week, only this time I added lines moving vertically and horizontally across each other while the colours changed. When this was rendering too slowly, Will stepped in and recreated similar on his faster laptop, but with wavy lines instead – so we used that to present with. Unfortunately I didn’t get any pictures of it but I did get some ideas from the ensuing discussion.
The result of this week’s experimentation was that when someone walked through the light of one projector, then the shadow of that projection would be filled in by the directional lines of the other. It was quite fun to look at, and even trippy at times.
We went home with differing opinions on where to go next, and on Matt and Jo’s suggestion, I decided to try what I’d thought of during class in the week ahead.
I’ll update the progress on that for next week’s blog.
Warning: This blog post contains some very harsh language.
There are two things I’d like to cover in this blog post: firstly, gathering responses from other people’s experiences online, and secondly, to streamline the points to cover in my digital artefact and seminar to be presented in week 9.
Over the past week I have engaged with some auto-ethnographical research methods to gather some answers to two questions, on either side of the negative communications spectrum – those that have ‘dished it’ and those that have ‘taken it’. As a disclaimer, I’d like to stress that these are just samples of responses that I have received – they do not reflect the entire situation. Some responses have been edited for continuity, grammar and spelling; all participants will remain unnamed on this blog.
The first question (as posted on Reddit): What’s your favourite ‘abusive’ message you’ve received online (gaming, youtube, etc)? I seem to have issues cracking the secret to a succesful Reddit thread; I only got a few responses to this, but what I did receive was useful. The question is ambiguously worded, and deliberately so; I chose the word “favourite” so as not to antagonise anyone into remembering any triggering memories, and to prompt some more of the entertaining responses that may not have been to harmful.
“”Come fight me, bro!” as he proceeded to give me his number and address …”
“I got told to hang myself with my mouse because some salty kid had the urge to PM me after a match cause i kicked his ass. Jokes on him its wireless!”
“Not exactly an “abusive” message, but a guy kept harassing me to do something that I kept telling him I wasn’t going to do, and in the end he just told me “Now the dream is dead.” … I used to make and sell fantasy attire for Second Life and I had made a set of pauldrons / bracers, and about a year later, he was asking me why there wasn’t leg armor and demanding I make it and give it to him. (so nothing exciting)”
“”Everything was great until OP started begging for money. Dont ask people to support your hobby. Go find a job and support yourself.” … “Just because you know how to make some doodles doesn’t mean you can earn a living with it.” … “he’s not even that good” Response from one person on imgur to me putting a link to my patreon at the bottom of a series of Dark Souls boss monster drawings that I did.”
“Not very abusive towards me but I was playing CS:GO and someone got a triple kill with the pp-bizon and decided he would write in chat: “Get raped” … “By my pp””
“Had this friend who was a mute chick on League of legends. Back then, my username was KuroTheCat and I would sometimes just pretend to be a cat to annoy people. Since she was mute, she would only type when we skyped but she always used your instead of you’re. After a while, I told her she should really correct it. She flipped out and went into a long rant about how it was who she was and she would change whenever she wanted. So I deleted her. The next morning she sent me an essay of how I was a horrible human being but she topped it off with “And BTW you’re not a fucking cat””
While there were not a lot of responses, I was pleased with the variety of responses I received. I am concerned that the notion of rape was brought up in such a small sample pool – I wonder if the ratio of comments of sexual nature would change should I have had a greater response. I was previously under the impression that these kind of comments were not all that common – I personally haven’t received any notable responses of a sexually charged nature. I will elaborate on my own experiences in my seminar.
The second question (asked in numerous Discord channels): Have you ever been combanned/banhammered from online communications? If so what was it you said that got you banned? Did you feel any remorse for your actions and did you think there would be consequences? This question was a little more loaded than the last one – only a few managed to answer the third part of the question, however. I believe I will have to dig a little more deeply in order to find the psychology behind these behaviours – perhaps by finding some more scholarly sources.
“I was only banned once, but I dont remember what it was for, so :/”
“Been banned in a twitch chat for using 3 emotes to type out kek”
“I’ve never been banned from anywhere, as far as I remember. My brother, however, was banned in Maplestory due to drama spread by his then-girlfriend. Ended up getting kicked from a guild, and I guess the drama was enough to ban him from the game.”
“I got banned from league of legends for being salty in one game. I called someone a dick waffle twat. … [then] I got banned from minecraft for… You gotta wait for this… Having my brightness on full. So I don’t need torches in the dark. It was either that or the fact that I was a bit rude to the mod that pointed it out. I think I said something along the lines of. “Because your blind ass can’t see in the dark doesn’t mean I can’t” Which wasn’t even that bad. I got banned on a different server for saying “Where do I buy some fine booty” … and I’m not even joking”
“Been banned on some unturned server for telling an admin to “chill the fuck out you autistic spastic” … the admin was being an autistic lil spas so … oh better one … another one in unturned banned from another server for walking up to an admin and saying “hello” that got me a perma ban cracked me up XD”
“I got banned many times as a kid, it was because I was an asshole. I used to be a lot more abrasive … I remember one time I got banned for racism because I was trying to explain to some guy that banning jokes is fucking retarded. That was a fun day – he got so mad … Sometimes its how I’d acted for years on that forum and sone [sic] guy just got pissy about it. Sometimes I didn’t care or I felt I was making a moral stand.”
“[The second time] I got combanned for calling the kid a scrub … [the first time for] saying either fucker bitch or cunt.”
There are some great and varied responses here – examples of minor rules being broken and some examples of outright abusive communications behaviour. I feel that those that answered the question and showed no remorse did so because they believed the receiving party deserved the harsh words, or that they were made in good faith that the other party would not find it offensive. Which brings me to another point of investigation that I’d like to look at – the difference between banter and abuse.
Coming to this point of the study, I may have been too ambitious and I feel I need to dial back on the mass of topics lest I become overwhelmed. Refining this study into a series of dot points to use as headers looks like the way to proceed.
So, what are we really looking at here?
The difference between banter and bullying
When trolling becomes harassment – what’s the difference?
Real life consequences: doxxing and swatting
Is this an indication on how we’ll treat our AI citizens in the future?
Given the seminar is 20 minutes long, it seems to make sense that I will spend 4 minutes on each point, and use the remaining 4 minutes to introduce the topic, conclude my hypotheses, and explain my approach to the digital artefact – how I will present this information. I am leaning towards a series of 4 youtube videos or blog posts at this point.
This week was a little more interesting than the previous weeks – we have now moved on from researching to actually doing things! Our task for today was to choose a category that we felt aligned to our interests. The categories were:
Textuality and expression
Materials and immaterial processes
Light, shadows, and displacement
story-telling through sound, image and interaction
Generativity: Difference and Repetition
Algorithm and Reproducibility
If you’ve kept up with my posts so far – you’ll know that my choice was obvious – Multisensory Interaction.
We were then grouped up into teams that also chose that same concept and then given a choice of 3 works to recreate. In our category, the 3 works were…
We chose to re-create Olifur Eliasson’s Your Uncertain Shadow (2010) – one of two groups to pick this work. It was very interesting to see our different approaches to this work, which I will elaborate on later. Firstly, though, I will outline our process to our final product.
Firstly we had a brief look at the original work and how it was created – by placing different coloured lights in proximity to each other, each of the shadows were a different colour as the shadow blocked the illumination of the other lights. By having multiple lights lined up in a row, multiple shadows are produced, all different colours. Knowing this, our first approach to the work was to borrow about 5 lights from the TO Glen, with different coloured gels (cellophane-like coloured plastic that changes the colour of the light beam). While we were waiting for them, however, we had a quick chat with Matt who suggested we use projectors instead – this appealed to us as another group had chosen the same artwork to recreate – and had been using lights with gels. We settled on 3 projectors (not too large a number so as to disadvantage others in our class) as we had the ability to change their colour at any given time. This gave me an idea.
Why settle for a static colour when we could have ALL of the colours?
I had a few hurdles to overcome, mostly being a little rusty with the chosen programs I wanted to use that would help me achieve the vision I had – a loop of a block of colour changing through the entire rainbow spectrum, set to start at different times. But then I thought I could take this even further still. We had 3 projectors – so I could have 3 sets of these spectrums playing at different speeds! This would mean that no 3 colour combinations would be the same for the duration of the 5 minute loop.
Here’s where we get into the really technical stuff behind the project. The idea was now to project the entire colour spectrum animated to different speeds and there for creating many different colour combinations where no two were the same. I decided that the entire spectrum would be shown through one slow, medium and fast speed – 30 seconds, 15 seconds, and 10 seconds respectively. The idea here was that by the time one slow loop was done, two medium speed ones would be finished, and three fast speed ones would play through. I set these to repeat for five minutes, as there is a loading screen between each loop on the Qumi projectors that we used which tended to be quite jarring as we had discovered the first time we set up our projection.
After timing the loops effectively, the next hurdle we had to overcome was the fact that the Qumi projectors apparently didn’t like playing the quicktime format (you’d think that being forced to export into that format through an industry standard program that it would be a little more technology friendly, but alas…) so after a quick chat with Glen he informed me that the computers have a program called Handbrake that can convert quicktime files to the more user-friendly mp4 format. After many trips back and forth and waiting for over 15 minutes for all the projects and loops to render and convert, I finally had something workable. I rushed back to the now empty gallery (I assumed everyone was on break – they were not. Awkward.) and set up the projectors to play the loops.
The last hurdle we encountered was that one of the Qumi projectors just… sort of looked like it was giving up on life. It was dull and faded, and barely visible – which when testing out the result of our work, had a significant impact. I couldn’t show this to the class! So I waited until another group had finished presenting to borrow one of theirs. A quick change and we were ready to present.
Before moving on to the discussion shared with the class, I will show you the final results – I think they looked fantastic!
These images were taken about 30 seconds apart from each other and I love all of them.
I pitched our process to the class for the class discussion. What made this particularly interesting was the comparison to the way the other group tackled the same work. They used a black box (small black soundproof room) with a white screen set up in the center. On the back end they used 2 lights of differing colours, and on the front they used 3 lights. The result was very soft colourful gradients moving into each other with soft shadows. The audience were free to roam on either side of the screen which enhanced the shadow effect and created many different colours. The audience played with the scale of their shadows and even interacted with the audience member on the other side of the screen. It was quite playful and if I could describe the work using one word, it would be ‘soft’.
In comparison, ours felt a lot sharper and the colours much more pronounced. It reminded me of the older ipod ads – or an 80s music video. To me it felt quite psychedelic, and this was something that others picked up on too. It was great to watch the class interact with the work, standing there for 30 seconds on average to observe the different colours that their shadows created. An unexpected effect of layering the rainbows on top of each other with the projectors was that a large rectangle in the center stayed largely white – and acted as sort of a blank canvas to experiment with form and colour. It would have been great to have a camera on a tripod capturing the interactions on this blank canvas through a long exposure photograph.
If I were to revisit this work in the future, I would add 2 more projectors and experiment with each projector not just going through the entire spectrum, but have them change from a gradient of two or three colours exclusively (for example, red to yellow to green, or blue to purple to pink) and overlay those. It would take a lot of experimentation to come up with something that audiences would find very playful to interact with. I really like the idea of the shadow being split up into different colours – it feels like different facets of the self that you are interacting with.
I could see myself incorporating this into my MVP if I were to change from the headset idea – I could place proximity sensors around the room and rig them to play sounds when you come near them. I could use the entire black box space and make the walls white and place multiple projectors and lights around the room to have the shadows reflect on all the walls instead of one. It is definitely something to consider…
This will be a brief blog post having a closer look at one of the works at the Materialising the Digital exhibition from last week’s trip to the Powerhourse Museum, Sydney. We teamed up into pairs and chose one work that we liked and answered a set of questions. The work we chose was from Aki Inomata’s series, Why Not Hand Over a ‘Shelter’ to Hermit Crabs? (2014-15).
How was the work made?
CT scans of hermit crab shells, 3D “casting” made with design on top, then 3D printed.
What materials were used?
Clear 3D printing resin
What kinds of processes were used?
She used a CT scanner to capture highly detailed and 3 dimensional renderings of unoccupied seashells that her own hermit crabs had abandoned. She then prototyped several habitable shelters based on the interior of the shell. Initially her work was based on Tokyo house-style and apartments in Paris, and then city architecture, and then mimicry of certain structures.
Was there much experimentation involved? What purpose did this experimentation serve?
Initially the shells were prototyped based on a basic shell concept, however all shells ended up being rejected by her hermit crabs. This presented a hurdle of understanding that Aki Inomata was forced to overcome in order to create something that the hermit crabs would use.
What decisions were made?
As an ongoing project, Inomata is still creating more of these shells for her hermit crabs. Now that she has the basics of the hermit crab structure understood, she is able to use these as blank canvases for her statements in regards to how the architecture of Japan echoes designs and draws inspiration from other cultures. Her decisions mostly revolve around what statement to make next.
Other Questions to consider are:
Why were these decisions made?
Why these materials?
Why these processes?
How did these ‘serve’ the ideas explored?
And what are these ideas explored?
This is something I’ve decided I will answer in greater detail in my analysis of the exhibition, due in week 9. I will most likely choose this same work to focus on!