On 01/07/2016, I prepared a small exhibition space to display various conjunctions of research material, both from within my own process as well as forms of potentially final output. The exhibition featured 5 different formal approaches to my research project:
- Stereolithic (STL) prints, placed upon black foam boards which were covered with a print of the recorded interface of the corresponding sample, A4 white on black.
- “Reference guides” (REF), small and short booklets that recount, in a narrative style, the recorded activity in the presented samples. 2 for each sample that featured as a print, A5 hand-bound.
- Large Booklets (BOOK), featuring screenshots of the application juxtaposed with screenshots of the recorded interfaces. A3, handbound.
- MacBook Pro laptop (APP), running the prototyping application programmed for this research project.
- My research notebook (RES).
From my informal observations, the following insights were gathered:
- STL gained much from the base picturing the computational interfaces, and was recognizably supported by REF. Found to be ‘enigmatic’, drawing the first interest.
- STLs in clear resin found to be more intriguing than those in opaque.
- STLs prompted immediate questions about what they might be, drew such associative terms as “worlds”, “social media space”, “terrain”, “building”.
- REFs were very well received throughout. The cover, illustrated with the relevant sample’s computational interface and a (pixelated) screenshot of the “actual” interface linked the REFs clearly to the STLs, which were placed onto the same computational interface.
- REFs prompted visitor with very little knowledge (just knowing it involved social media) to make question to the effect of “so this is social media activity, like a world of it?”
- REFs intrigued another visitor with no knowledge in themselves, calling them “illustrated poetry”
- REFs were seen by another visitor, with high amount of knowledge and a stake in the project, as narratives/languages that are hinted at in the other research material.
- BOOK made little impact and prompted few questions or statements.
- was noticeable primarily for the “Cast”-list.
- was also noticeable for what it (and others, though it is of significance that it was expected to be found here) lacked: a material link to the STLs and an explanation as to why we are in 3D space at all.
- APP was welcome, but not essential.
- needed (almost always) guidance for use, was found to be “hypnotic”/aesthetically pleasing nonetheless.
- suggests a loop or video might work well enough.
- REF was intriguing, but again not essential.
- Prompted no questions or statements.
- Selected scans (if any) might suffice?
As a preliminary conclusion from these notes and to use the shorthand of theatre again, what this points to is 3 working outputs based on the presented prototypes: STL, REF & APP. The first can feature as a Model akin to a “Set”-design, the second as the accessible “Script”/”Cast” that relates to it, and the latter (in the form of a video or loop, f.e. here) as the “Staging” of both.