3.1.2.2. ‘whisper’ : Methods
‘With a research team of over a dozen individuals, one size does not fit all. ‘whisper’ builds art research through techniques of body. But what does that mean? Does this ‘work’ as we work… softly, softer, whispering, shouting, weeping, dissolving, and re-emerging our strategies, technologies and techniques. ( ……)Our work of designing and testing experience models borrows methodologies from the performance practices of theatre, dance and the filed of somatics, expanding work in the area of computationally centered design techniques as well as the rhetoric of user-centered design, experience design , and participatory design.’ (T. Schiphorst)[232]
‘whisper’ was researched and developed using the processpatching approach. In addition to this, a reductive or problem solving approach was introduced during the work process for the hardware engineering trajectories. Initially, the project aimed at new collaborative research techniques and processes, with innovative strategies for sharing design and development methodologies between the sciences, technologies and the arts. In the early phases of the research process, participatory workshops were organised based on improvisation techniques as taken from movement theatre and dance performance. The makers aimed for an iterative design process with constant feedback and input of the users/participants when they interacted with the data and the devices. An example involved designing and prototyping the wearable devices in collaboration with user-centred iterative development processes.
The ‘whisper’ team had two members with a mixed background of multiple disciplines; one person who has a combined background in mathematics, science and music composition (7) acted in a more or less self-sufficient and independent actor in the process. The other person with a multiple background in computer science and interactive art (9), acted often as a mediator between the other team members, and whose background and methods were sometimes alienated. The team members with a mixed background represent self-sufficient artists and a mediator. In addition, Kristina Andersen (3), whose background is also a bit mixed, acted in several situations as a mediator between the hardware developers and the performing artists.
The aRt&D Matrix below shows the difficulties experienced when the software, hardware and the physical vocabularies were developed in parallel. This brought along a complex process of unpredictable features and obstacles. The obstacles were experienced in the shifting objectives, causing collisions among the collaborators and their related disciplinary traditions. In the iterative process, the project went through a shifting focus on the output, which distorted the technical development trajectories and some of the scientific objectives, while the artistic intentions remained the same. In ‘whisper’, like in other interdisciplinary projects, the artists had the need to use parts of, or re-purpose the software that was brought in by the collaborating scientists. This obstructed the scientific aims or goals, as the ownership of the software or hardware came into play. Tension arose among the team members when software or hardware was used for different purposes or as an illustration of an idea rather than a functional prototype. A combination of methods, in different parts of the project, turned out to be the best approach. For example, the hardware designers worked according to a reductive or problem solving approach and the concept team worked according to improvisation techniques. The different parts and approaches were knitted together by one of the software engineers and the interaction designer, and this was done in a freestyle, associative, artistic way.
| Artistic aim, objective | Method | Characteristics | Group dynamics, team composition | Advantages / Disadvantages |
| Problem solving | Reductive method | Single or limited disciplinary problem solving approach, applied research, practical method | Technicians as facilitators, artists as engineer in single / limited disciplinairy situation, no improvisation | Sharp goal, clear aim, useful for tool development, no divergence, lineair, predictable, assistance or facilitations rather than co-operation |
| Selfsufficient, selfsupporting | DIY and hacker methods | Mis-interpretation / re-interpretation protest / activism via alternative methods, mostly small scale | artist as enfant terrible, catalyst for creative thinking, innovation of artistic oeuvre (the latter relates to DIY) | Surprises, new perspectives challenges, critical view, new insights, reflection, awareness, Critique, confusion, shaking up the teams, intuitive, steep learning curve to become self-sufficient |
| Innovating arts, re-contextualising technology, creating new connections | Process patching | (Re-)mixing and re-appropriating methods from scientific fields and (non) technologies, aesthetic driven, often large scale | Parallel and intersecting methods and approaches, from involved disciplines |
Freedom to change methods re-contextualisation, space for cooperation, ground for new discoveries and innovation, |
| Participatory method | Itterative process, design method thought from the end-user / participant's perspective | Complicated tocombine with problem solving, interdisciplinary cooperation, 3-th space | Ground for co-operation, experience oriented applications, difficult to combine with problem solving | |
| User centred design method | Design method focussing on theparticipant(s) experience | Focus on end- user/participant |
(fig. 19. aRt&D Matrix with methods used in ‘whisper’ (Bold)
