It HAS been a while since my last blog post.
I actually finished the project by the first week of April (I hadn’t notice that a month had passed since then huhu) and this is what it looks like:
“What to do When the Read Me Looks Like It’s Ciphered?”
Chinese calligraphy ink on cartolina – 21.5 x 17.25 in
(It doesn’t look as impressive on camera as it did when I had it in my hands… Boo, my poor camera skillz T^T )
At the time that I finished my piece, the only concern I had left was if I still wanted to get the audience to actually decipher the text, and if I did, how I was going to make it apparent. The initial idea I considered from my previous blog posts was providing a conspicuously hidden cheat sheet (that’ll give people clues on how to decipher it) and a stack of papers and a pen on a table directly below the frame. The reason why I didn’t push through with it is because I couldn’t find a table that was either white or that matched with the frame that I had.
The backup idea was to incorporate it into the title of the piece. As you can see, I made it pretty apparent that I wanted someone to give me an answer to my question. Unfortunately, when I had my classroom panel defense for my piece, the panel understood what it meant, but didn’t decipher the message as I had expected. It was probably because I had forgotten to actually talk about my title. (And if it wasn’t obvious enough, I only realized this as I’m writing this blog entry right now…)
The “read me” and “qdzc ld” labels on the frame was supposed to be the cheat sheet, but looking at it now, I’m questioning how I bore it with myself to crudely stick a piece of paper right onto the frame. I’m not sure if the panelists understood what it was for, considering they didn’t question the awkwardly placed papers with an incomprehensible script on it, but I think it would work if I just change the way I incorporated it into the piece.
I was part of the 3rd batch of students for the panel defense that was set on April 19. The panel seemed to approve of or at least understand the concept of complexity in language communication, but I wasn’t too thrilled about half of their comments. As I’ve mentioned countless of times in my blog entries, the direction I want to go with is to get people to acknowledge the misunderstanding AND see that there is a way to connect and solve the dilemma/issue presented (that is, by using familiar letters). The panelists on the other hand, based on their comments, want me to stop at acknowledging the misunderstanding, to heighten and amplify the being “alien” of one person’s language to others. They wanted the script to be “completely unrecognizable” if I remember correctly.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. In fact, I really like the idea. It could be a part two to “What to do When the Read Me Looks Like It’s Ciphered,” after I revise and fix the issue I have with the cheat sheet.
Well, I can always start on a new project on my own.
Can of Dices