Facing realties
Now that we have the paint applied to the trunk of the tree, the bow transported and placed in the studio space, and the 3D printing as we speak for the bone, it was time to meet with Ben and Pete for a check-in.
From the beginning, it was necessary to correct Bens expectations for the installations. At present, he was wanting us to explain how we could place one installation in a public space, and then collect a flyer to get involved in the hunt. Some obvious challenges would arise with the installations having to be waterproofed, constant 24/7 staff or security to guide people through the hunt and protect the installations from vandalism, and the manner of getting a flyer for the hunt and then collecting 3 pieces of the QR code from the 2 other installations, both requiring their own staff/security would be impractical. We chose to focus more on the showcase evening, and across AUT campuses at the largest for the installations, due to these challenges being unable to be met with the systems and user journeys we have currently. We remain confident that it will be a seamless and exciting journey for users to participate in the light hunt but have to admit that it will not be feasible in public spaces.
We are also not blind to the installations themselves. I am not going to say that Chris and I are the best installation artists or artists at all, and the execution of visual elements in the project are poor.
The tree, unfortunately, does not look like a tree. despite the effort put into the paper mâché and trying to texture the paint to look like an actual trunk are average at best. Ben was one to say that it turned out exactly as he was expecting, some branches and some paper mâché, and I cannot fault him on this observation.
The root issue (Pardon the pun) is that it is trying so hard to be a tree, but looks so much unlike one when you look at it. In other words, it can look like an artistic sculpture inspired by trees (see below) or it can look like a tree.
Unfortunately, our work falls somewhere in the middle and brings us back to the very infamous Uncanny Valley. Too unlike a sculpture, but also too unlike a tree sinks it down this valley to exactly where we would want it to crawl out of.
The bow also is brought down in a similar manner. Take the installation at face value, and it’s a piece of chicken wire in a bow shape with some rope lights running through it. That’s it.
Both Ben and Pete point out that the poor execution and design distract away from the project, and projects cause for the audience, and once again I can’t fault them on their analysis.
Both Chris and I knew to go into this project that building three large-scale installations was kinda crazy but figured it was our last semester to go all out and try and make a project more than just superficial. I feel we have achieved this, but with quantity over quality. The end product could have been better. If we had a group member or consulted with another person with a more design-focused background, rather than just Chris and I’s engineering and construction background I feel that we would have three more visually pleasing results, and less distraction away from the project due to the look of it.
Mori, M. (2012). Translated by MacDorman, K. F.; Kageki, Norri. “The uncanny valley”. IEEE Robotics and Automation. 19 (2): 98–100. doi:10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811












