The feedback statement to the team presented by René Lansink in the feedback discussion, last day plenary:
Project 5 Haptic Art
This project with the tagline ‘Spray it, Play it’ has works with the premise that everyone is an artist. Using a special ‘spray can’ the user can ‘define’ a virtual ‘canvas’ in a public space. On this virtual canvas the user can use a virtual brush and paint menu for creating virtual graffiti by making gestures. The images can be saved, transported to another virtual canvas on a different location or stored on a website were all the works of art are collected.
The concept of the project was visualized clearly in an animated video. The exact material qualities of the ‘spray-medium’ used to display the canvas however remained a bit of a mystery…as well as the devices necessary to ‘see’ the virtual graffiti. Also the more or less ‘subversive’ nature of graffiti art was basically ‘neutralized’ by using this technology.
Challenging however remains the idea to define a ‘virtual window’ in a ‘real space’ by other means than using a physical display.
Summary of comments by other lecturers
Was the design process democratic? Maybe is needed some thinking about the group work. Some members of the group think the product is not the most interesting to develop. We could see the process of your group on the presentation.
The visualization was the best part of it.
It wasn't clear if you decided to work in one thing, it became vague. Too much talking instead of a demo presentation. It looks you need to make a lot of decisions in your project. Simple facts were needed, it wasn't clear to understand. The music didn't fit in the video. Can this compete with augmented reality? Because it does the same but has lots of limitations, it is still something physical. Who is the audience for this is not clear yet, as does not really fit with ideology of street artists. The presentation was weird because of several people standing in front but almost only one person is talking.