Adam
Scher


Writing
and
Research

Midterm
Reflection
and
Evaluation

October
18,
2010

FEEDBACK

Throughout
the
duration
of
the
semester
I
have
not
been
overwhelmed
with


discovering
the
larger,
over‐arching
concept
behind
my
thesis
prototyping.
I
believe


this
has
allowed
me
the
freedom
to
create
in
a
way
that
has
been
fruitful
and


seamless.
This
process
has
left
me
with
a
wide
range
of
prototypes
that
I
was
able
to


present
during
our
midterm
thesis
presentations.

It
was
important
for
me
to
get
an


outsider’s
prospective
on
the
work
and
my
process,
and
overall
the
feedback
was


extremely
positive.


Both,
Parsons
faculty
member,
Scott
Pobiner
and,
MFA
design
and
technology


candidate,
Ryan
Raffa,
were
excited
by
the
diversity
within
my
prototypes.
They


were
glad
to
see
me
exploring
a
variety
of
mediums,
which
Scott
said
I
seemed
to
be


“in
control
of”.
I
thought
about
this
particular
comment
in
depth
over
the
past
week.


I
do
feel
very
much
in
control
over
this
project,
and
the
research
and


experimentation
involved
in
developing
a
solid
thesis.
It
was
gratifying
to
know
that


professionals
in
the
field
acknowledge
and
identify
the
work
that
I
am
doing.



During
the
critique
I
was
presented
with
some
wonderful
feedback
and


suggestions.

Scott
and
Ryan
both
agreed
that
I
need
a
more
developed
“back‐bone”


incorporated
into
my
thesis.
While
the
idea
of
memory
it
budding,
it
needs
to
be


more
deeply
rooted
in
precedence
and
research.

However,
in
regards
to
the


precedents
that
I
did
talk
about,
it
was
noted
that
I
had
built
and
reflected
on
their

ideas,
rather
than
emulating
the
work.
It
was
suggested
that
I
look
into
the
concept


of
“technological
singularity”,
which
Wikipedia
describes
as
“reflects
the
idea
that


the
change
may
happen
suddenly,
and
that
it
is
very
difficult
to
predict
how
such
a


new
world
would
operate.”1
Other
suggestions
were
to
read
Einstein’s
Dreams
by


Alan
Lightman,
The
Information
Bomb
by
Paul
Virillo,
and
(No)Memory
by
7


Publishers.



In
addition,
Scott
offered
an
insightful
thing
to
consider
when
developing
my


thesis
further.
He
suggested
that
to
think
about
technology
that
we
use
to


remember,
versus
technology
that
we
use
to
forget.
I
feel
that
this
idea
is
rich
with


possibilities,
and
could
be
a
wonderful
through
line
for
the
work
that
I
am
creating.




Some
other
significant
pieces
of
feedback
were
regarding
the
validity
of


“fine
art”
as
thesis.

While
the
work
that
I
presented
was
thought
of
as
well


developed
and
on
a
strong
track,
the
questions
of
“So
what?”
and
“Who
cares?”
arise.


The
work
needs
to
be
more
than
something
just
nice
and
beautiful.
I
agree
that
it
is


important
to
make
my
work
accessible
and
to
allow
for
my
audience
to
identify
with


certain
elements
of
the
work,
but
I
cannot
loose
my
point
of
view
in
that
process.
I


believe
that
the
deeper
and
more
personal
the
work
becomes,
the
more
people
will


“care”.



One‐on‐one
meetings
followed
the
midterm
critiques
with
my
professors


Chris
Prentice
and
Cynthia
Lawson.
In
my
meeting
with
Chris,
we
discussed
the


similarities
in
the
process
of
choreographing
dance
and
prototyping.
As
an
exercise,


























































1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

she
recommended
that
I
develop
a
piece
of
writing
that
explores
the
relationship


between
these
two
practices.
How
does
my
experience
working
as
a


director/choreographer
influence
my
design
practice?
At
the
beginning
of
the


semester
it
was
suggested
that
I
consider
how
I
could
“choreograph”
technology.
I


have
been
considering
this
question
with
all
of
my
work
thus
far
this
semester,
and


am
in
the
process
of
synthesizing
what
this
means.
Choreographer
and
researcher


Ralph
Lemon
was
recommended
as
a
precedent
based
on
his
process.
I
was


encouraged
to
look
into
his
methodology
and
the
ways
he
incorporates
cross‐

disciplinary
exploration.


Chris
also
talked
to
me
about
an
advance
in
the
study
of
Alzheimer’s
disease.



They
are
in
the
process
of
developing
treatment
that
is
able
to
reverse
the
effects


and
recover
people’s
memory.
This
could
be
an
interesting
scientific
model
to
study


and
research
as
I
continue
to
develop
my
thesis.
It
also
got
us
talking
about


developing
work
that
explores
how
we
can
piece
memories
back
together.
Currently


my
work
has
been
looking
at
degradation,
so
this
will
be
a
wonderful
way
to


approach
my
questions
from
a
different
angle.
On
the
topic
of
questions,
Chris
told


me
that
my
overall
thesis
question
needs
some
serious
work,
while
my
subsequent


design
questions
were
pretty
good.
I’m
sure
as
the
semester
continues,
I
will
be
able


to
refine
and
solidify
my
overall
thesis
question.


Another
domain
that
Chris
suggested
I
look
into
is
Glitch
art.
Glitch
art
is
a


genre
of
fine
art
that
celebrates
the
glitches
and
malfunctions
of
technology.
While


most
of
this
glitch
art
is
manufactured,
meaning
the
artists
creates
formulas
and

programs
to
distort
their
images,
there
are
quite
a
number
of
technological


malfunctions
that
occur.
I
have
already
started
to
research
this
domain
and
it
has


led
me
to
the
investigation
of
many
subsets,
including
data
bending.



Cynthia
also
offered
some
insightful
feedback.
Most
important
was
her


comment
that
although
the
work
is
exciting
there
is
something
relatively
shallow


about
it,
she
isn’t
left
with
lingering
thoughts
about
it.
Perhaps
this
is
because
most


of
these
prototypes
were
developed
as
quick
sketches,
which
took
no
longer
than
a


few
hours
to
develop.
She
suggested
that
I
work
on
a
piece
that
takes
a
much
longer


time
to
develop.
This
investment
of
both
time
and
energy,
has
the
potential
to
allow


me
to
create
something
much
more
deep
and
meaningful.
This
could
perhaps
help


me
answer
the
“So
what?”
and
“Who
cares?”
question
that
Scott
raised
during
my


critique.


NEXT
STEPS



 To
begin
with,
I
have
two
different
prototype
ideas
that
will
lend
themselves


to
Cynthia’s
suggestion
to
take
more
time
in
developing
my
next
prototypes.
Based


as
homage
to
Jim
Campbell’s

Home
Movie
Series2,
I
want
to
create
a
series
of


memory
light
boxes.
I
initially
see
them
as
little
keepsake
boxes
with
a
lid
on
them.


When
opened,
one
could
peer
inside
and
view
clips
from
my
home
videos.
This
idea


is
in
its
initial
stages
of
development,
and
I
feel
like
I
am
going
to
need
a
lot
of
time


to
sketch
and
prototype
several
different
iterations
of
this
concept.




























































2
http://www.jimcampbell.tv/portfolio/low_resolution_works/home_movies/

 Stemming
from
Silhouetting
the
Past,
I
am
interested
in
developing
a
body
of


work
that
incorporates
performance
and
time
based
media.
I
know
that
questions


were
raised
regarding
the
notion
of
performance
in
the
work
that
I
showed
during


my
presentation.
Was
the
video
a
video
of
a
performance,
or
was
the
video
the


performance
itself?
These
questions
really
excite
me.

For
my
next
iteration,
I
am


going
to
look
at
the
subject
of
portraits.
I
will
most
likely
still
use
home
videos
as
my


“material”,
and
want
to
create
a
series
of
family
portraits
based
off
of
my
pre‐

existing
footage.


In
addition
to
developing
these
two
more
in
depth
prototypes,
I
think
it
is


important
to
test
my
current
works
with
an
audience
outside
of
our
studio
class.
I


am
finding
this
particular
step
of
the
design
process
challenging.
For
my
iChat
piece,


I
am
planning
on
putting
it
up
in
several
different
“public”
spaces,
just
to
see
how


people
tend
to
interact
with
it.
The
easiest
and
most
obvious
place
for
me
to
test
this


will
be
some
place
in
the
Parsons
building.
Although
I
think
it
is
important
for
me
to


test
it
in
a
more
public
arena.
Some
ideas
I
have
had
are
placing
it
on
the
ground
in


the
middle
of
Union
Square
and
taping
it
to
the
walls
where
posters
are
wheat


pasted.


Methods
to
test
my
other
prototypes
are
more
ambiguous.
Cynthia
told
me


that
I
need
to
think
about
how
I
visualize
my
final
work,
in
order
to
best
decide
how


to
“test”
work
that
is
considered
fine
art.
Do
I
see
it
in
a
gallery?
Does
it
belong
in


public
space?
Is
it
meant
to
be
viewed
on‐line?
These
are
all
things
I
need
to


consider,
quickly.
These
questions
will
inform
how
I
decide
to
test
the
work.


 I
am
meeting
with
Anthony
Aziz,
a
professor
in
the
Fine
Art
department
at


Parsons,
this
week
and
hopefully
he
will
provide
me
with
another
perspective
on
my


work.
I
think
it
is
important
to
get
feedback
from
someone
who
is
removed
from
the


Design
and
Technology
department,
especially
when
my
work
is
situating
itself
in
a


fine
art
domain.
After
my
meeting
with
him,
I
expect
to
have
more
clarity
about


where
I
would
like
to
position
my
work,
and
next
steps
in
testing
it
with
its


proposed
audience.


In
terms
of
research,
I
am
in
the
process
of
familiarizing
myself
with


autobiographical
memory
from
a
scientific
perspective.
I
believe
that
having
a


strong
foundation
and
understanding
of
memory
and
forgetting
from
this
point
of


view
will
help
ground
my
work.
In
addition,
I
am
reading
the
literature
that
was


suggested
during
my
critiques
as
well
as
researching
other
fine
artists
and


performance
artists
that
have
explored
similar
themes
in
their
work.