Pixel
Final Committee Review
Links to my previous key experiments:
Based on the Interviews
Subjective Expression Tool
Based on the work upto mid-review, the aspect of making a clear distinction between experience and place to determine the method of exploring the subjective versus the objective representation, was an important aspect in further developing my thesis direction. The big take away from the mid-committee review was that it led me to establish a clearer framework for my thesis by focusing on the aspect on the affordance of documentation in the hyper documented world. That is, instead of just focusing on documenting subjective representations in contrast to the objective technological environment. While researching to find What places are being documented? What places are not? researching forgotten places that result from system glitches as opposed to visual glitches. And that research led me to look more deeper into the satellite documentation, especially through Trevor Paglen’s archive of undocumented spaces.
Read MoreAerial Photography of the Wind Tunnel Gallery
I put together this archive of satellite images of the Wind Tunnel Gallery for the Histories of the Future course taught by Norman Klein. It is to compare the image quality while making an educated guess of which type of satellite the image was possibly taken. Below is the link to the site.
Archive: Aerial Photography of the Wind Tunnel Gallery
Based on the Interviews
Interview 3: what’s the address of the place where you…
Below is the video I produced juxtaposing the addresses and the time-frame people gave based on the 10 questions that was asked:
1. had most delicious meal
2. cried alot
3. were most unhappy
4. remember laughing the most
5. wish to rebuild
6. want to take your favorite person to
7. want to revisit with your family
8. wish you bumped into someone that you want to see again
9. remember it being loud?
10. said your good-bye to: a person, thing, habit, feeling, job, etc…
Then I asked them using the numbers as landmark to map out these places however they like.
It’s interesting to see how each person made connections amongst these 10 locations based on their own experiences, memories, and time-frame. It is also interesting to find that people are able to make some association to 10 different places based on their memories, regardless of whether those memories are significant to them or not.
Based on this exploration, I am interested to see how one’s recall of insignificant memories contribute in meaning making process of latent, yet noticed possibilities of one’s desires and aspirations.
Read MoreBased on the Interviews
Below is the video I produced based on what I learned from the interviews. I took two stories shared in the Interview_2: Layers of sensed memories and Interview_4: What’s the address of the place you no longer can visit and applied some of my earlier methods I established using the Google Street View. I was interested in using the aesthetics that derived from technological limitations such as glitches, errors, and distortions especially found in Google Street View/Earth. The blurring effects are caused when you navigate using the street-view due to not able to render the images fast enough. Also in Google Earth, when you’re viewing areas where topography surface is high that when rendering these areas using the flat satellite image put on top of the 3D render of topography surface then stretched therefore, causing distortion.
Below explorations are about using technological distortion and glitch aesthetic for subjective representation of one’s memory. It is to explore how everyday technology environment can be re-contextualized for personal narratives.
Based on the interview 2: Layers of sensed memories
Based on the interview 4: What’s the address of the place you no longer can visit?
Interview_5
Interview 5: searchable / non-searchable
From the previous interviews, I asked people to draw or write something that they wished they kept as a memory of the place with memory. Then, I asked them to identify what they think its searchable (using search engine) and non-searchable.
Purpose of this was to distinguish the difference between how people associated the material, or physical that they can “search” associated with their memory vs. that are non-searchable.
Interview_4
Interview 4: what’s the address of the place you no longer can visit?
I was curious to know through these interviews, what happens if these places no long exist? Has no physical presence. Or person has completely detached from a place for whatever reason. I wanted to know what memories are associated with places that people can no longer visit.
Below is a documentation of how people talk about these places:
Interview_3
Interview 3: what’s the address of the place where you…
It was clear to me after interviewing about 8people prior to this interview that what I want to contrast later on with these memory maps are that these places are physical places. Physical places that has or had an address at certain point.
I have a questionnaire below to fill out:
what’s the address of the place where you…
1. had most delicious meal
2. cried alot
3. were most unhappy
4. remember laughing the most
5. wish to rebuild
6. want to take your favorite person to
7. want to revisit with your family
8. wish you bumped into someone that you want to see again
9. remember it being loud?
10. said your good-bye to: a person, thing, habit, feeling, job, etc…
Then I asked them using number as a landmark to map out these places however they like.
After that, I had put a tracing paper on top, then asked to time line it. (if place is in the future, then asked them to indicate when in the future they’ll like to visit)
Below are series of video of showing the process of how people map out 10 locations that I asked them to give addresses to:
Interview_2
Interview 2: Layers of sensed memories
Learning from the previous research, I decided instead of start talking about the places before they map them out, I asked them to think of one place that holds significant meaning in their life, then had them start drawing right away. Reason for this was, I was interested to see if people will remember a place differently if they didn’t have the chance to really verbalize it. I was hoping to get more through mark making, based on their memory map, so I will be able to put more layers to tease out more specific types of memory such as: memory through sound, scent, touch.
These videos are edited, highlighting just few parts
person 1: first experiment to do a contrast of how does eliminating certain memory this person mentioned not to keep looks like
Interview_1
Place. It holds different meanings for many. Especially in ways we interact, create meanings, and how we associate the notion of “place” is in constant shift. Think about how social network, geo-locative applications, Geo-trourism has shaped the way we make choices in relation to places.
Now that I’m much clearer my interest is much more within the aspect of how people create meaning in places. Does the meaning making process something that can be documented? materialized into meaningful artifacts, one to reminisce, resemble a place that no longer exists or places that are ephemeral in digital spaces…
To observe these tendencies, I used “memory” as a tool to have people draw, materialize, make marks of a place that holds certain meaning to someone.
I went through series of interviews, iterating interview questions as I learn from the observations. The following posts are the results that derived from these interviews.
Interview 1: Please Draw…
Below are the order of process that took place during the interview
Read More