E III: Sensory Storytelling
Create an experience project evoking emotions and personal memories in the participant that mirror or complement your assigned story by stimulating multiple senses
- How might we use spatial experiences to trigger memory and imagination?
- How might an experience be a catalyst for empathy and compassion?
- How might sound, sight, smell, taste, touch, and space interact?
- How might we design an experience that is inclusive?
My assigned story was about two sisters remembering their father: a casual man advocating for inclusivity and pride on one’s identity.
Themes:
Individuality
He was a proud Black man and ever since we were kids, he taught us the history of Juneteenth, that it’s the end of slavery. And he wanted everybody to celebrate that day, not just African-American people. But people didn’t want him to talk about it.
Our father taught us to love ourself, to love our color.
Inclusion
I remember Dad always smiling, and he jus t did not meet any strangers, never.
You are not any better than anyone, but you are not any worse.’
I remember us having a lot of food and it being like a picnic. And a lot of kids of different races came around…and they wanted to eat. Dad was like, ‘Yeah, everybody’s going to eat.’
Daddy had probably 200 people, now we have thousands that come and celebrate.
Looking into our readings for this project, I would also like to tackle a more “real-time” experience, rather than a later takeaway or moral.
Brainstorming
To inspire the feeling of “group collaboration” and the welcoming, warm feeling of being included, I thought of a couple general statements:
- People generally feel welcome when they are heard, or are able to contribute something
- There’s a middle balance in noise that contributes to the ambiance: too little noise and it’s awkward, but too much and it can be overwhelming
- The atmosphere can do a lot for the activity: for example, a picnic is significantly more pleasant for the picnickers on a warm, sunny day than a cloudy one
Overall, I was beginning to finalize the point that I wanted something that had a low stakes threshold of initiation that still activates the feeling of inclusivity I wanted to emulate. With this in mind, I started thinking of potential, real-world examples that emphasized these qualities.
Research on project goals:
https://localprojects.com/work/interactive-installations/art-is-social/ https://food.ndtv.com/food-drinks/viral-video-scream-for-chocolate-to-win-free-mcdonalds-ice-cream-3340323 https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/yayoi-kusama-8094/yayoi-kusamas-obliteration-room
In all links provided above, there was a commonality: all the “threshold initiations” that sparked the comfortable atmosphere were related to low-stakes, contributing interactions that can be done alone, but are amplified when performed as a group.
In realizing this, I created a few basic sketches of two different concepts:
- A radial room with various panels: most of the panels are two-person interaction based (but can also be done/viewed in groups). The center is a conversation-pit (like the 90’s), with texture similar to that of a picnic.
2. Hexagonal tables with attached chairs that can be connected to each other and all have wheels at the bottom: participants interact with the radial screen wall and then can collaborate/convene. Each person also holds a thermo-plush that gets warmer when tables are connected/when they are in proximity with another person. This emulates the “warm, fuzzy feeling” one gets, similar to that of a satisfactory, group activity.
After running these ideas with Daphne, she suggested that I follow through with the first idea, since the second one gave too many opportunities for people to be enclosed within themselves (sitting on their lonesome, being hunched over “hugging” something → less open impressions, etc.)
However, I was struggling with a “connection” part — it’s all fun and interactive as a group, but how can the benefits of group interaction be showcased visually? Daphne then suggested that to build further the “prioperception” and ambiance portions of the overall, environmental experience, there could be changes in light (like a rave! But more chill!). For example, there could be motion sensors where every time a person enters, the scene changes color. This allows the existing participants to at least be aware of another person joining the scene.
Once Daphne gave this suggestion, it sparked another idea in my head: what if the different colors were based off of RGB colors, and that activates different results in the overall drawings people produce?
By emulating Red, Blue and Green “light”, I different parts of the overall graphic can be showcased in different time frames.
Thus, I pitched an interactive exhibit with two parts: One is a ring of interactive panels (similar to that of the Local Projects exhibition), and the second is a place of rest and to contrast the former interaction. The second portion allows the rest to also digest the collaborative qualities of the first interaction, by projecting all the images together in RGB colors. Each section can therefore tackle slightly different sense
Group Feedback:
Overall, consensus was strong and i didn’t have too many holes in particular. However, two points of discussion were a) having an exit token for the participants and b) what in the bloody world were the interactions going to be on each panel??? The same interaction? Multiple? How many?
Susan and Spoorthi argued for having different interactions: this allows the stimulation of different senses. I felt myself leaning into the same verdict, as one of my biggest fears was having my interaction (if I chose a singular one) be too similar to an existing museum.
In the beginning, I thought 5 interaction panels would be a solid idea because the 5-point radial shape allows a big enough gap for people to see in between each panel, but also see the screens of everything (even number panels of the same width would end up blocking each other if someone wanted to see what the other interaction would be from afar).
However, Daphne also brought up a good point of me considering making an interaction non-screen based. Because I haven’t been able to touch upon sound that much (I can’t control the volume of chatter from people), Daphne showed me what sound domes were, and how I could potentially introduce that as a way of controlling the exports of one’s interactive play.
Therefore, I swapped out a panel with a table + overhead sound dome, where participants can circle around the table and put blocks on different weight-sensor activated beats.
This was quickly vetoed though, as it just looks a little too different. Instead, I came up with a sound board idea, so it still fits into the “panel” structure and overall cohesion. To break out the rigidity of 4 panels with the same dimensions, I proposed a double-panel interaction with twice the width.
Initial Implementation
When I visited Senior Studio, the Environments Seniors were shocked that no one had taped our studio yet. So I went and did that (lol).
After walking around to simulate the pathway flow, it seemed just a little too small — but the studio space was excellent for real-world referencing. Thanks to Terry, I was able to acquire the square footage of E studio.
I also based off the interaction panels in the real-world to make sure the dimensions were also suitable — perhaps around 4 ft width on average.
Gauging these measurements with some newly founded information, I was able to generally calculate appropriate measurements for the overall space
Making a quick, shoddy example of what I was planning on creating gave me a better sense of the overall layout:
So, I decided to make a physical model for our class’s pin-up critique afterwards.
Feedback:
- What would it look like without such rigid walls? Can they be curved? Or not exist at all?
- In terms of space, would it benefit more as its own exhibit set up temporarily outdoors, rather than a museum? Do we cut out the walls then? How can we make it feel less artificial?
- If the second part is iterated, then the roof dome idea will be finalized, rather than the projected walls.
- Cut out the ending token concept; it’s too complicated both theoretically and in real-world implementation. If people wanted a takeaway, they can create their own just from taking pictures of their work or the space.
Iterating
Moving forwards, I began working on a 3D model of the space. While I could have continued to work on the physical model (and I was lowkey hoping to, I bought LED lights and everything! But ran out of time), I was going to have to show the interactions on the panels digitally anyways. Moreover, it would have been difficult to showcase the dome and provide screencap shots of different perspectives without a digital software.
Because SketchUp had some restrictions in fidelity level, I imported it into Blender to see if I could do some higher fidelity rendering (and learn a new software in the meantime)
Updates: Blender is hard and everything is pain
Working in an unfamiliar software definitely slowed down my workflow, but I knew that my concept was not sellable if I pitched with the limitations of SketchUp and had to photoshop colored renderings for an extended period of time.
With a healthy combination of help from my ideate TA, Senior Eric Zhao, the occasional classmates, and a lot of Youtube tutorials and Googling, I was steadily progressing.
Making Interactive Screens
Truth be told, I didn’t spend a crazy amount of time showcasing the entire interaction for every panel. However, I still wanted to create prototypes of all the screen-based ones to show proof of concept. This was done on Figma, and mocked up digitally.
Reflection
I liked this project a lot! I learned some new skills along the way (my biggest goal), and I feel that I got stronger in my refinement of work. I was very unsure about a lot of things along the way, and I think that had a lot to do with me just transferring into a new track, and having to do some catch-up along the way. Telling narratives is a thematic part of E that I value a lot, so I hope I grew and did it justice in this project.
When talking to the seniors, their advice was to use this project as an opportunity to explore and grow on your own. As a result, I tried hard to push for Blender as my final rendered product, and I’m thankful with how it turned out (especially the lighting). I think my presentation would be a lot weaker, a lot more confusing, and would require a lot more grueling and enduring photoshop work if I hadn’t done that.
All in all, I can only get stronger from here. Hopefully, in the future I’ll acquire even more software skills, and explore more physical things (such as physical computing + arduino + finally using the product studio shop) so I can deviate from my digital practices.
