Assessment day

This posts serves to document what i feel went well and what could be improved in regard to the work presented on the 29th April.

Set-up

Successful -

1. All networking worked well, allowing efficient presentation of the media
2. HRMI device and all Arduino hardware worked straight away
3. HRMI heartbeat capture was strong

To be improved -

1. Blackout curtaining did not do what i wanted it too. I did not have enough material to make a closed 'cell-like' arrangement. I probably should have used the blackout space even though i found it overbearing because the media screens were very close to the participant. This may however have added to the immersive, intrusive, and intimate nature of the piece. The material did however hide the tables well so the space was darker.
2. The breathing sensor was difficult to fit and the way it attaches to the performer needs reassessing
3. All USB wires etc were a little too short in practice

Performance

Successful -

1. Showing the real time physiological changes in a performer was a smart choice in terms of presenting an initial impact and establishing a connection
2. Sound and visuals were successful and would work even better with minimal tweaks
3. The grandfather clock ticks worked well to give the heartbeat visual added value. If the vibrofeedback device worked it would have felt a lot more 'locked-on'
4. The 'shock' worked well as an overall feature in two specific ways. Firstly the 'button' worked well and delivered a shock to the leg of the performer. The shock provided a change in heart rate and clearly stimulated the performer visually and in most cases audibly! Secondly it played upon anticipation. This was achieved through the charging sound a few seconds before the shock itself, the performer squirmed as they knew it was approaching. The countdown also provided a longer set anticipation and in turn a heart rate change. The screen itself was presented so the performer could just about see it. This meant he knew roughly when he was about to be shocked again

To be improved -

1. Intimacy was not as effective with 5 people in the room. In practice a 1-1 experience would have triggered more anxiety and uncertainty about what was happening. The participant would have asked themselves more questions about the stimuli around them
2. The 'Acknowledgement of Death' certificate may have carried more weight in a 1-1 setting
3. The Heartbeat visual needs to be calibrated taking into account the elevated resting heart rate the performer experiences in the situation they are in. This requires a different scaling of the colours presented
4. The vibro-feedback system was omitted because it was not working correctly. This was a power issue and is now resolved. The omission however lost a big part of the relationship that the participant builds with the performer. This must be fully functional
5. I forgot to explain the functionality of the button presented to the participant
6. The Countdown screen although successful was situated slightly too high, therefore it was initially missed by the participant
7. There needs to be a clear ending to the piece without diluting the message. Originally i chose to 'kill' the performer once again, blaming this on one too many an electric shock. As the bringing to life (which was probably not too clear either) of the performer was meant to symbolise the reconnection of the relationship between you and your simplest internal physiology, would killing the performer send the message that over stimulation of this relationship will eventually destroy that relationship again? I'm not sure this is the message i want to convey

The piece will be refined and re-presented in June

Lee