Honestly, as a physical installation itself, it had mostly met my goals from the start. And if this had been a project in fine arts, this project would probably have been a success. However, as a project that is designed, there has to have been significant intention behind it.

While there was valid intention and efforts made to communicate that intention through this project, there was one major flaw I overlooked. The fact that this exhibition, “Open Studios”, is not the right place for my installation. The “Open Studios” was more of a platform for students to showcase their works-in-progress. Not so much to overload visitors with deep topics and get them to ponder about life. Hence, the demographic of majority of the visitors were almost the opposite of the demographic that I had needed for this installation to work.

I mean this in the most polite way possible, but I observed from testing amongst my peers, and from gathering feedback from several visitors, that the project ultimately cannot reach people who have very limited world views. Especially if they don’t have any kind of vested interest in the greater social matters. This was the case not only for my project, but for many of the projects of my peers as well. It made me remember that the average person really only cares about the things that they care about, and in the case of “Open Studios”, most of the visitors cared more about tangibility and tactility, as well as bright and vibrant colours. Something that my project simply did not have.

That is not to say that the project was a complete failure however, as from my own counting, at least 20% of visitors were able to meaningfully engage with the installation. With several even leaving their thoughts on the notepads provided without my prompting. Additionally, I was able to engage with several industry veterans with meaningful discussions about the generative AI discourse. Some topics included:

1. The lowering quality of gen AI outputs as many tools are starting to be trained on their own generations.

2. What kind of creative work can be done that AI can’t do?

The industry veterans were also able to appreciate my attention to detail and the humour that I put into the installation in artefacts like the headlines in the newsprints.

Before the exhibition ended, I was also asked to walk my peers through my installation. However, as observed with the majority of the visitors, most people were simply unable to engage with the installation. The ones that did, simply did so because they had existing interests in the topic. My supervisor then prompted me to think about making this an easier experience for the average layperson to understand. However, this was already an issue I foresaw and chose not to address due to many of the limitations that I was already handling with as mentioned in the previous weeks.

Ultimately I was content with the project as it allowed me to explore and do many things I had never done before. I am also content with its mild success and overwhelming failure as it does make me understand the limitations of this kind of project. Most importantly, this scenario was basically one of the worser case scenarios I had already envisioned when trimming down the scale of my project, hence it was already to be expected.

Beyond the complexity of the topic, other issues contributing to the installation’s failure also include the fact that due to the location and setting of the installation, it was too ominous and people were unsure of whether it was intended to be interacted with.

These are all factors that I will consider as I draft a new blueprint for prototype 2. However, as the semester is coming to an end, it is impossible for the second iteration of this installation to come to life. As such, moving forward, I fully intend to attempt to repackage all of these in a way that hopefully engages some laypeople better.