Tomás González

Tether: Critical Framing

“Contemporary mobile technology fosters the creation of a tethered self and fosters non-singularity…. We no longer truly inhabit public spaces by sharing with those around us because technology allows us to remain emotionally and socially tethered to our homes.” - Sherry Turkle - ‘Alone Together’.

The constituent elements of our installation operate in regard to the weak signal of social interaction within a physical space. To focus on a public space and question the unwritten rules, fears, and social behaviors which have formed there is the basis of the participatory installation.

Development & Reflection Statement

The underlying theme of our project has developed since its original proposal. Our initial proposal was one dimensional, limiting and lacked the correct technical/physical aspects to deem it an actual ‘interactive installation’. We also realized that our project, in its early form struggled to address the ideas which we wanted to be portrayed through the installation. In order for us to truly expand on our concept, we needed to experiment and flesh out our ideas. Upon prototyping the elements of our participatory installation, we came to understand that what we had visualized would not result, and new, yet more engaging aspects became suggested along the way.

Our original motivation - shadows; was lacking, although it was a weak signal, it was not sufficiently engaging to be the center point of our installation. Recognizing this, led us to re-frame the structure and aspects of our participatory installation, resulting in a performance-based installation. This refinement was required to hold attention to our work and encourage the idea of interaction, as by now having performers, we were able to make a distinction between them and the audience and simulate our ‘virtual’ communal space to play out the human interaction between both groups. We wanted the audience to see how they would react to the performers who were tethered and insular allowing for no social connection, welcoming the feelings of unease, confusion, curiosity, and awkwardness.

Sound: The sound aspect of the installation developed from our original proposal. Originally our sound was just ambient chatter that we recorded ourselves within studio. The ambient track is approximately one hour in duration. As our idea developed we realized we needed to add more depth to the sound element, as it rather defaulted and predictable. Once we transitioned into a more performance styled installation and at the same time stopped using the buttons as an activator, we decided to mix the sound live on the day. Ben’s role in the installation was to manually adjust the volume, (more people in the active engagement zone = more sound, fewer people = less sound) and mix the sounds that he saw fit in the situation of the installation. The sound became more complex as the installation went on, starting from just our original track “Chatter ambiance” and evolving into multiple layers of different tracks and sound effects. The complexity of the sound representing an awkward but almost overwhelming environment that becomes increasingly uncomfortable to be within, as participants realize that there is nothing and that there is no one to truly ‘interact’ with despite being told to interact.

Image: The performers serve as metaphorical representations of one's ‘tethered self’ and therefore stayed on their phones and a couple of performers were decorated with wires which physically represented the idea of being tethered to the devices. The furniture used to depict a typical lounging area with comfortable seats and finger food. Despite being a very communal area, the performers stay on their phones paying no attention to anyone around them as if they were another piece of furniture. Although the imagery is meant to represent a very welcoming environment, the sound and performance aspect says otherwise. As for the performance itself, we made the mistake of ending it too abruptly and rushing it, making it more of theatrical thing rather than an interactive installation. If we were to go back, we would had left it go on for longer to see if more people would go up to interact and see if they would have started to break the boundaries of the installation and start breaking things.

Today we showcased our installation. Reflecting back, things went well. My only mistake was ‘ending’ the installation too early and not allowing other people to experience it. My initial thoughts were that the allocated time-slot we had been provided was rather short, which led me to rush the installation. Although apart from this, the installation ran smoothly. Our original concept/context has been slightly changed, and there was an obvious change from how our installation was originally going to play out, to how it actually played out. All these ‘new elements’ and changes will be discussed and justified on the final write-up.

I would say that from our original proposal our concept developed quite a bit. We were discussing shadows with James and we agreed that the aspect of ‘playing with our shadows’ was rather 1 dimensional and boring. We were then set on creating a performance experience that would portray weaker shadows in the background. The shadows weren’t as solid as we had planned them to be, but we noticed it really didn’t affect the depth of installation. We decided to focus on how the space would interact with people rather than how people would interact with the space. So that means the sound aspect as well as the performers. 

A couple of changes have happened since the last blog. The style of our installation is now more performance-based. Here is a video to show off a low-fidelity practice run of the installation;

The shadow aspect of our interactive installation is inspired by Samuel van Hoogstraten's engraving "The Shadow Dance" (Rotterdam, 1675). 

This week we have dedicated our time to update the coding. Ben is working on creating an array for the buttons to work properly during the installations showcase. Today we finished the 3 buttons, we decided to use the same design as the prototype, as it worked fine and both of us are low on budget and can’t invest more into the project as we would like. 

Next on the list is to get our hands on a speaker. We will ask AUTSA if we can use their large portable Bluetooth speakers if not our contingency plan is to use a smaller but still potent speaker. We currently have two 5m extension cords but need to buy one more to make sure our cabling is safe and long enough. 

Today we had a chat with James and it helped up validate our current progress. We understand we need to start blogging to document our work and to show that we are critically aware of the conceptual and contextual boundaries of our participatory installation. We are working within a bubble in regards to how to shut off we are towards being influenced by others art pieces, so that will change. In terms of the set-up for the installation, we have decided that the best time to showcase is at 7:30pm because it’s dark enough for the shadows to show and not late enough that there aren’t any people around. We’ve also chosen the spot for installation, a public space where people regularly pass by.

Conceptual Statement:

“Social media and emerging mobile technologies have forever changed the landscape of human interaction”. - The Human Connection in a Digital World

The constituent elements of our installation operate in regards to the weak signal of social interaction within a physical space.

In Sherry Turkle’s book ‘Alone Together’, she makes the point that “Contemporary mobile technology fosters the creation of a tethered self and fosters non-singularity…. We no longer truly inhabit public spaces by sharing with those around us because technology allows us to remain emotionally and socially tethered to our homes.”

The focus is not to re-establish the way people behave in a communal space, by untethering the insularity and countering the ‘negative’ impact on digital technologies on social relations within a public space, as that would remove the weak signal.

The basis of the participatory installation is to focus on a public space and question the unwritten rules, fears, and social behaviors which have formed there and simulate a virtual communal space where participants interact with others through their shadows from their individualistic zones.

Sherry also makes the point that “cafes, airport, and parks are no longer communal space but simply places of social collection; people gather in them but instead of speaking to each other they are attached to their mobile devices.”

By using the projected shadows of the participants we want to simulate a virtual communal space, where participants can engage with their own shadow or others shadows. The shadows serve as metaphorical representations of ones ‘tethered self’ and they are cast onto the wall within the public space. We decided to use shadows as they are weak signals themselves. Just like shadows, people surround us, but we don't always interact with them or pay attention to them.

The active engagement zones are represented as spots on the floor and are distanced from each other to seclude the participants and engage them within their own boundaries, this is done to focus on their physical seclusion and emphasize the weakness of social interaction through non-virtual means.  

The spots are also set up in a way that predetermines the reach of the cast shadows so that they can merge and interact with others shadows on the wall but are still physically far away from each other. “The shadows will serve as extensions of the body to produce the sensation of embodiment“ for the participants”. - Kuylen, C., Balas, B., & Thomas, L. (2013).

The ambient sound of chatter within our installation will represent the ideal communal space. It will diminish as more people enter the active engagement zones (the spots) and this is done to portray our tethering by transitioning from the conventional ways of socially interacting with others to being reliant on technology as a middle-man to facilitate this process.

The weak signal also serves as an anticipation of technologies swift advancement, our transitioning reliance on technology for social connections/interactions and how the dimensions of public spaces are being re-defined by the development of technology.

References:

Chan, D. (2014). The Human Connection in a Digital World. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-chan/the-human-connection-in-a-digital-world_b_4855478.html

Kuylen, C., Balas, B., & Thomas, L. (2013). My shadow, myself: Cast-body shadows are embodied. Retrieved from https://www.ndsu.edu/fileadmin/lthomas/Kuylenetal_2013_.pdf

Turkle, S. (2017). Alone together. New York [etc.]: Basic Books.

Written Description

In the grass patch outside WG level 4, there will be white sheets over the wall parallel to the entrance.  This space for our installation was chosen as students frequently pass-by yet it is rarely occupied. Our installations focus was to transform this unused space into our virtual communal space.

A flood light placed approximately 17 meters away is casting light towards the sheets on the wall. The floodlight is a 500W halogen bulb, casting an expansive light over the active engagement area. The width of the installation is approximately 10 meters, this is the distance from the left most spot to the right most spot. In between the wall and the floodlight, there are three 1 meters diameter spots placed in a way that separates the participant’s physically but allows their ‘virtual selves’ or their shadows to merge. The spots mark the area of active engagement, this is where the participants will ‘perform’. The white sheet is seen as the ‘canvas’ that the participants will perform on, it is seen as a direct color contrast to the shadows for maximum visibility. Within the installation, the ambient sound of chatter will be playing at max volume in order to attract passerbyers, as participants enter the spots, the sound of chatter will begin to dissipate a set amount until all the spots are finally filled and there is silence. The depth of sonic content within the installation is dependent on the number of participants within the spots. The ambient chatter will be recorded by us and will simulate the feeling of an ideal communal area.

Participants within the active engagement zone are encouraged to do what they see fit on the spots; to play and interact with their shadows or others shadows, they are in a sense our ‘performers’ within our simulated virtual communal space and those outside of the active engagement zone can observe their ‘performance’.

Sonic Content 

Ambient chatter recorded by us. Here. 

Spatial Visualisation 

Technical Requirements & Specs

* Large white sheet(s) - Buy from the warehouse

* Floodlight or projector - N/A

* Arduino - N/A

* Laptop w/ MIDI - N/A

* 3 or more large circle cuts - Cut from wood, materials from Bunnings.