I had the first meeting with Sarah. Sarah helped me a lot and gave me a lot of inspiration.

First of all, she gave me two references. I like the VR game “Where Thoughts Go” very much. I think this game is very similar to what I want to express. Many people store their thoughts and meetings for their relatives, or other ideas in this game, and these memories become to be many stars. This is a kind of connection between people, which is also what I want very much. But the difference is that I may focus more on the complete life of an individual instead of that there are thousands of individuals scattered in the game like stars. I hope that the memory fragments in the work can finally be integrated into a complete individual. The second wishing tree project is actually very similar to the VR game, just one in the virtual world and the other in the real world. But there is a problem with both of these projects. I think their interaction is one-way. It is just that individuals are expressing their feelings, but they have not received any feedback. Moreover, these two works of art focus on the audience who make the voice, and the protagonist in my works I prefer to be the patient with Alzheimer’s disease who is remembered by the audience.

I found many other related works of art

Among them, I like Christian Boltanski’s works very much. He has fully focused on the relationship between memory and death. I will further study her works.

Another artist I like very much is Sarah Sze. I think her form is very good. It combines traditional painting art and architectural art. I think my final product will also close in this direction.

As for the concept of the difference between memory and death in different religions, I am also exploring. Unlike Western countries, which have a wide history of Christianity, most people in China are actually atheists. We are more of an ancestor worship, that is, the so-called three generations are all gods, so our feelings for the deceased relatives are very profound.

My next question is to explore memory, the connection between people, and the relationship between death.

https://first-latency-df1.notion.site/Dream-Review-2-18-2023-803e2174ed20480aab8ad7a1e1c9774c

https://first-latency-df1.notion.site/Similar-Artists-Review-2-18-2023-b8acbd9e19184459bb0422b48a4e1daa

https://first-latency-df1.notion.site/Nothing-to-Something-Activity-9a519bdfef4246ea941144a4cb13635a

Hey!!

Back again!

Just finished up my second meeting with Sarah today and had a blast! I gained a lot of information and new possible ways to present my thesis which I’m excited about. I have clear vision of what I want to execute in the short amount of time given so I’m just super excited to dive in!

My next steps for myself involve interviewing, gathering sound, illustrating, and exploring!

Until next time! 🙂

Had a great call with Sarah the other day. Feeling like I should stick with the ML-Interface for music creation, and trying to blend a bit of what I’m doing with what’s going on at work. Some insight from today’s group and 1:1 calls:

• How do you make the interaction still feel rewarding to beginners and experts? Many ML-based music projects have strong guardrails to prevent “bad output”. Can you allow room for the good and bad outputs of your system and still make the experience feel rewarding?
• How can you combine both concepts (Sublime/Awesome Technology + ML Musical Expression) into a single trail of work? Is there room to blend the two ideas?
• Go to the MoMA and check out Refik Anadol’s piece, then read the critique here

Overall I’m feeling good where I’m at, with the next steps being to start reading materials, reviewing my concept with Luisa and asking for course materials, speaking with Yotam, and doing an initial dive into the technologies I want to use.

Great conversation with Brian and Lane 🙂 really helpful

I shared my thesis idea with Brian and he provided feedback and possible next steps on how to narrow down the scope and connect those sub-topics together.

We also went over the proposal guidelines and now I have a clearer understanding on what to do.

It was also inspiring to hear Lane’s idea, she is quite ahead and already started the making process.

The last exercise we did was “5 minimum and 5 maximum specs for my project to get there”, which is useful to determine the priorities & direction.

This peer meeting is a great one. We briefly updated our progress. Brian pointed out several crucial steps to kick off the proposal process, during which we also found helpful to broadened the spectrum of our thesis idea. We each wrote 5 minimum steps to achieve our goal, and maximum 5 steps to achieve the goal, in the end for me especially, I found out that I had focused on the “tech” side way too much and forgot about the fact that sound is also a focal point of my thesis that I yet to discuss. And that opens up the priority for which the device should be built. And I am going to list this in my proposal and discuss the details in depth.