Installation together with Kiritan Flux for a more detailed status report on the hardware, follow the link. More data on the way.
THE COLLECTED DATA
The problem was yet again, finding a way to get people to contribute constructively. We couldn’t get online participation due to lack of internet so we had to focus on the local participants and get them to interact with the installation. This proved to be yet again a difficult task. We experimented with different questions the fist two days. The first day we used Marcel Proust’s questionnaire which engaged people to interact, but didn’t give much results because the answers are abstract ( What is your greatest fear: “to die”). Also since we visualize textual data, we need data to visualize and the problem with questions is that most of the time they can be answered in 2 words, which doesn’t give that much results and in it’s turn doesn’t engage the participants to continue. Also a great deal of the visitors tend to conform and reduce their answers due to the lack of privacy, which is the reason why we wanted to do the experiment of confronting the online results with the local ones. The second day we tried questions that pushed towards a bit more visual/descriptive answers. We also pushed up the scale to respond more to less data, but we were confronted with yet again the same problems. So the last day we just tried with a “does what is says on the box” approach and just tell people what to do, with also results with little impact on the image. So the final conclusion is again how to engage people in a “museal” context. What we do know is that we need a higher and more fast-paced degree of interaction to get people to experiment and play. Playing does seem to negate the “I have to be serious and type a few seriously thought trough answers or just touch the keyboard” attitude. So we need to accentuate that more in the next installation.
To view what people typed visit the “Event Data Input” page