During the meeting, I introduced my prototype idea and full scope of the work expectation to my mentor Andrew, who from my understanding has many experiences with performance art form.

The feedbacks I asked were:
1/ How he thinks the current version of interaction could provide better narratives of the theme to the audience/participants 

2/ How to think about the body of work in this context of performance art.

The feedbacks I received are very informative and rich.
He first concluded the experience of interaction in three words: Nostalgic, melodic, and psychological. Andrew asks me to think the performance as curation and responses. Who participants what and why audiences invest into the curated experience? He mentioned think of it as many micro realities happen all at once. He mentioned sketch a storyboard and think of scenario prior and after the key event.

As I am writing down his feedbacks, I realize I know nothing about performance art form. So I looked up a book about performance art, specifically interactive performance with new media and history of theory.
 Digital Performance : A History of New Media in Theater, Dance, Performance Art, and Installation

I need to read this along the process of experimenting. 

Have 3 things to update with him for the next meeting happen on 04/24

1/ filled storyboard
2/ play test feedback
3/ refined narratives about the theory

I think my interests lie less in ‘whether machines are conscious’ and more in ‘what happens when we cannot tell the difference’.

~~~~~

Switchboard operator as an early “Ghost in the Machine” // Aesthetic parallels to the Neural Network

Types of Phone Calls/Voicemails:

• Catch up
• Business
• Appointment Reminders
• Spam voice
• Job Interviews

Voices to include:

• Family
• Friends
• Coworkers
• Receptionists

Potential Futures:

• Leave real voicemails on people’s phones (Twillio API)?
• Can I buy phone numbers off the dark web to use (Hypothetically)
• Play a message and call someone at the same time

Progress Photos:

https://first-latency-df1.notion.site/1-1-Sarah-4-12-23-5f36d8afd21141a09113acc46fc4ac25

Hey all! 🙂

I had my 5th Peer Group Meeting with Beth today! Beth, Jheanell Jaye, and I all went over what the mentor process has been like for us so far! It was also really nice hearing about the progress my peers are making as well!

I stated a quick summary of my first meeting with my mentor, then went into what my next steps for progress would be, and then we all discussed what to expect for the final presentation!

Well that’s all for now!

Until next time 🙂

Met with Zoe and Kat to discuss our thesis projects. Since we’ve had the opportunity to build a foundation of friendship over the year, I think we all felt more comfortable with more direct critiques of each other’s work, pushing each other to grow in a way we wouldn’t with other classmates.

I felt like my core concept hasn’t been challenged in the last few weeks and asked them to challenge it. I got the feedback I’d been looking for – why am I doing this work? Who is my pitch for? Challenges to my core concept. The combination of the friendships plus that they aren’t already interested in my topic became a catalyst for a strong skeptical view of my work, delivered in a good way.

Zoe asked what am I getting from the thesis process if this is something I’d be doing outside of NYU regardless. I reflected that I’ve learned a lot from the Critical Experiences perspective. I always made art based on tools, not research or concepts. Often the concept was just an afterthought, a name of a track after it’s done and I’m sussing out its vibe. To be deliberate, to research, to document, to have moments of clarity where I see all the ingredients that make up these experiences, that’s of real value and new for me.

Zoe questioned the name of the project, is it too loaded? I’ve gotten this feedback from some folks in the immersive experience industry as well, from that angle. So I’ve often not used the term electropsychedelic to talk about the work. It works great for psychonauts, if that’s my audience. I used this name for the Examined Life conference and that landed very well. But ITP thesis is a different audience, of creative technologist and faculty and related networks. For Zoe, the name is a turn off. Same with the phrase “consciousness expanding” – it’s meaningless to her. Perhaps for skeptics like her, the next step is IRB style scientific validation studies. Even at the sound baths, can I collect surveys afterwards?

Also thinking of future steps as I was explaining the project to her, what is special about putting sensors on more people? For me, it’s the experience of emergent phenomenon, murmuration, flocking behavior, co-authorship, action without an authority. I had an experience in 2008 during a flood crisis in my hometown that led to seeing the power and efficiency and wonder of emergent behavior and it was one of the most powerful experiences of my life.

Kat felt my pitch was too technical and felt like a sales pitch. I was first to admit that the incubator program I’m in at Tandon (Innovention) has shaped the way I present my ITP thesis. But Tandon is different. That is a pitch to investors for funds to commericialize a very specific version of my EEG software. That’s a turn off for Kat. She feels my pitch has no emotional connection in it. What’s the point? Why would anyone care about this project? Theta, brainwaves, EEG, etc etc.. too technical. We didn’t have time (our meeting was 2 hours) but I thought of the many ways I’ve presenting this work in the past, before I understood or was studying the more scientific aspects. I thought about my work with AI, the dancers and motion sensors and seeing how empowering biofeedback loops were for them. Then my lucid dream, getting my first EEG, my eureka moment, my profound experiences during performances, watching Gina hear her brain for the first time – those all were powerful experiences and perhaps the emotional tone that’s been stripped out.

Met with Yuqing, Wentao, and Hakani today. Discussed alternate narratives than starting with my background or bio and trying a new order to my slides. Hakani suggested reviewing Beth Fileti and YG’s videos from previous years. Also discussed Sehmon’s idea of doing a guide or zine or website to hand out at shows.

I shared the details of my last mentor meeting with my group and gained some insights from others’ experiences.

One point I took from Wentao’s sharing was to prepare the thesis for both Zoom presentations and on-site shows as separate events. This is because our environments are different. We can consider them as two distinct stages. Additionally, Sarah Hakani advised us to document as much as possible for future reference.

While discussing the topic of consciousness with Jason, I became curious about the psychedelic experience. I find myself lacking the imagination to truly resonate with the feeling. I’m eager to give it a try during the Shanghai session!

I have my first 30min meeting with Gregory. For this first meeting, we focused on introducing ourselves to each other. It is close to my first 1-1 meeting with Sarah, but I have more to show about my thesis. Besides that, G gave me some advice on the interview part after the player played the game. He pointed out that this progress should not only be an “interview.” The interview form might not be the one I want since an interview is usually dull and not “interesting” at all. After this meeting with him, I decided to polish the “after the game” part and have a letter of invitation that the player can share both on social media and with older people in the family.