Playground in island 2010 by Total Museum of Contemporary Art

Artist talk

Hojun SONG, Suntag NOH Educational presentation

Junghwan SUNG, Jongsoo KWON

Youno PARK, Sungdae HONG

Seungjoon CHOI + Kyungjin LEE James POWDERLY

HELLO~ KOTA KINABALU

Kolej Yayasan Sabah

Initiated in 2005 in Korea, Digital Playground continues its experiments on media art from various perspectives with different themes. Nathalie Boseul SHIN is the curator behind this international digital art festival from the beginning. At first, this media art exhibition was planned to promote the city by Eujongbu City. Since 2007, she has developed this project as a regular media art project at the TOTAL MUSEUM of Contemporary Art. The last two project <Digital Playground 2008 – Hack the city!> and <Digital Playground 2009- Open your Source> earned quite an attention from the general public and art people, resulting a group of media art fans in Korea. What make this project unique among many other media art exhibitions is that it always develops some sort of workshops that anyone interested can participate, making media art more accessible. In 2010, this project will be executed in Kota Kinabalu in Malaysia, a perfect city to introduce media art where people have a great interest in digital technologies media art.

HELLO~ KOTA KINABALU

Kolej Yayasan Sabah

HELLO~ KOTA KINABALU

General information

Exhibition

1 Opening party

2 Showcase installation

3 Screening video

Presentation

1 Artist talk

Hojun SONG

Suntag NOH

2 Educational presentation

Junghwan SUNG, Euisang OH, MinJu LEE

Jongsoo KWON

Youno PARK, Jaewoong KIM

Sungdae HONG

Workshop

1 Being creative workshopSeungjoon CHOI + Kyungjin LEE

2 Making game with KinectJames POWDERLY

Picnic to the Manutak Island

Play, Interact, OrganizeSoochul KIM

CODA

GENERAL INFORMATION

General Information

Title

Date

Venue

Host

Co-organizer

EXHIBITION

Opening party

Showcase installation

Screening video

Opening party

Showcase installation

Showcase installation of Korean Media Art

Interactive media art (22 works)

You are my light!

Laps of the capsule

Breath Brush

Trace #2

Sound City

Warped Message

Soap Opera in Walking

Shamefaced #15

BouncingBall_xGuitar Duet

Real-Time Photo Mosaic

Two_Heart: To_Heart

Slow Scan

Color xylophones

Dice

Scary Painting

Fine III

Music ! Music !

Floating Memory

Aesthetic Movement of Seoul Metro

Distorted Soul #2

Resonance #1

Jongsoo KWON

Unzi KIM

Dongjo KIM

Youngmi KIM

Seung Seok NOH, Jiyoung CHOI

Geunho PARK, Chunji JIN, Won JUN, Kyujung KIM

Wonbae PARK, Doowon PAIK

Junghwan SUNG, Jaeyoung KIM, Minju LEE

Junghwan SUNG, Hyohoun NO, Euisang OH

Junghwan SUNG, Byongsue KANG, Minju LEE

Kyuchul WON, Myounghoon PARK, Jinwan PARK

Miohk RYU, Kyungju PARK

Jaejung LEE, Hana MOON

Joohun LEE

Jaesun YUN, Wansuk KIM, Chan LIM

Yangmi LIM

Jeehyun YANG, Chenghua ZHANG, Kyujung KIM

Sangjun RYO

Haehyun JUNG, Intak JOO

Kyunga JIN, Hosung KIM

Sungdae HONG

Showcase installation

Screening Digital Animation & Experimental Film

Digital Animation (8 Works)

1. <Geu mul> by Jinman KIM, (2009, 2D & 3D, Color, 9’40”)

2. <the way> by Minyoung JUNG, (2003, Stop motion(Puppet), Color, 13’)

3. <Rail> by Baeyoung MYUNG, (2009, 3D Animation, Color, 14’)

4. <Black out> by Jinho RYU, Woong SUNG (2008, 2D & 3D & Scratch on crayon, Color, 6’44”)

5. <Can> by Minji JEONG, (2010, 2D & Digital cut-out, Color, 10’30”, HD Cam(NTSC))

6. <Chohon> by Junsang YOON, Kinam KIM, Eunju KIM, Yongju PARK, Youno PARK, Jungsun CHOI, (2004, 3D Computer Animation, Color, 13’)

7. <Mom> by Wooksang JANG, (2010, 3D Animation, Color, 14’)

8. <Animating Earth> by Jaehyung JU, (2010, 2D Animation, Color, 17’)

Experimental Film (8 Works)

1. <TIME - LILLY> by Youngeun KIM, (2010, NTST DV, Color, 1’43”.)

2. <First aid> by Seungae BANG, (2009, NTSC DV, Color, 2’26”)

3. <Nebula Rising> by Hangjun LEE, (2009, 35mm film, Color, 8’40”)

4. <Say> by Kang JUNG, (2009, NTSC DV, Color, 15’40”)

5. <Vision of Compression Part ISynfonia> by Junho OH, (2010, NTSC DV, Color, 13’)

6. <Faint Footsteps on a Trembling Surface> by Yejin KO, (2009, 2D&3D NTSC DV, Color, 9’)

7. <phenominon series> by Chan LIM, Beyungchul MIN, (2010, 16mm b&w film, 3’12”)

8. <the Breath> by Minyong JANG, (2009, 16mm film, color, silent, 10’)

Screening Video - collaboration with <Coffee with Sugar> project

Bulgaria (4 works)

1. < I See - You See> by Daniela Kostova (2002, video, color, sound, 30’)

2. <The Real Thing> by Adelina Popnedeleva & Michel Beck (U.S.A.) (2000, video, color, sound, 4’)

3. <10 Minutes World Art> by Kamen Stoyanov (2003, video, color, sound, 10’)

4. <Whatever-Advert Laboratory> by Borjana Pandova, Todor Karastoyanov (2005, video, 8 pieces (from 1 to 3 min), color, sound, total: 16’)

Turkey (6 works)

1. <Turkish Light Arts> by Extra-Struggle (2002, video, color, sound)

2. <Fast-Iman>by Bengisu Bayrak (2003, video, color, sound)

3. <The hairdresser> by Basak Kaptan, Maria Frycz (2004, video, color, sound)

4. <I/O Interface Overbloated> by Erhan Muratoglu (2005, video, color, sound)

5. <Nigar> by Erhan Muratoglu (2006, video, color, sound)

6. <Lost Postcard> by Selda Asal, Ceren Oykut (2004-2005, video, loop, color, sound)

Denmark (8 works)

1. <060527> by Miska Knapek (2006, animation, loop, silent, 44”)

2. <glemsel.net> by Mogens Jacobsen (2007, net art)

3. <(Don't) Leave me Alone> by Kassandra Wellendorf (2006, interactive two channel video)

4. <Remember cake> by Steen Moller Rasmussen (2006, dv/movie, loop, 2’03”)

5. <Secret Service> by Heike Hamann (2005 video, color, sound, loop)

6. <Udefra> by Thomas Seest (2005 video, color, sound, loop)

7. <Parking Lot Limbo> by Jacob Tækker (2006, Betacam SP adapted to DVD, 11’)

8. <Postcards-Tivoli> by Nanna Debois Buhl (2006, 16mm film transferred to DVD(2006) 11 minutes/Stereo sound/Colour, Camera: Jesper Fabricius/Sound: Pejk Malinovski)

Screeningcollaboration with Netfilmmakers

Denmark (7 works)

1. <Muse> by FIELD (2010, video)

2. <You have to keep...> by Stine Marie Jacobsen (2007, video, sound, 3’)

3. <Stone> by Nanna Lysholt-Hansen (2009, video, color, sound, 1’56”)

4. <Paper cup> by Sorgen Thilo Funder (2009, videoHD apple prores/DVD, 57”)

5. <Artroyal> by Lars Vilhelmsen (2007, video, color, sound, blog art)

6. <Monument> by Jesper Fabricius (2005, flash, sound, loop, 55”)

7. <Face the wall> by Carl Emil Carlen (2005, dv, color, sound)

Belgium (2 works)

1. <The Whole Month Catalog> by Tim Knapen (2010, interactive)

2. <Tame> by Isabelle Schiltz (2009, panasonic NVGS300 video camera mini-dv)

Slovenia (3 works)

1. <Thinking> by Peter Koraca (2010, data visuallization, generative movie)

2. <Broken rainbow cloudy night> by Juria Yoshikawa (2008, 3’30”)

3. <Ultimate submission> by Gazira Babeli (2007, performance archive video)

Germany (3 works)

1. <Inner cuts> by Kerstin Ergenzinger (data visuallization)

2. <Apfelschnappen> by Jana Eske (2008, video, color, sound)

3. <Breaking point> by Sandra Becker 01 (2007, gif-animation)

South Africa (1 work)

1. <Noisewomb> by Catherine Henegan (2010, video, color, sound)

U. S. A. (1 work)

1. <What remains> by Alan Sounheim (2007, 1’26”)

Iceland (4 works)

1. <Busy> by AnnaMaria (2007, DV, after effects, reason)

2. <Christmas tree> by Finnur Arnar Arnarsson (2007, video, color, sound)

3. <Search> by Hrafnkell Sigurdsson (2007, photos dv, multilayerd audiotrack, 1’09”)

4. <Off-course> by Enda O'Donoghue (2006, loop, color, 2’50”)

Ukraine (1 work)

1. <The story for the gentle people> by Sergei sviatchenko (2008, sony DCR-HC39E, handhold, 2’36”)

Sweden (4 works)

1. <Origo> by Lisskulla Moltke-Hoff (2008, final cut, Mac, video 8, garage band, 2’59”)

2. <Debris> by Andreas Kurtsson (2008, netfilm)

3. <Delicious fastman in 60 sec!> by Jessica Nilson (2004, dv, clolor, sound)

4. <Print Screen Copy Paste> by Maria Lavman Vetö (2005, animation, loop)

Screening Prix Arts Electronica 2010 <CyberArts 2010>collaboration with ARS ELECTRONICA

Computer Animation / film / VFX (11 works)

1. <Nuit Blanche> by Arev Manoukian (CA, 4’39”)

2. <The Man in the Blue Gordini [L’Homme à la Gordini] (excerpt)> by Jean Christophe Lie (FR, 1’23”)

3. <The Sandpit> by Sam O’hare (UK/US, OOVFX, 5’35”)

4. <Nokta.> by Onur Senturk (TR, 1’25”)

5. <Ormie (teaser)> by Rob Silvestri (US, 20”)

6. <LOOM (excerpt)> by Jan Bitzer, Ilija Brunck, Csaba Letay (DE, Polynoid, 50”)

7. <Love & Theft> by Andreas Hykade (DE, Studio Film Bilder, 6’50”)

8. <Plane Stupid, Polar Bears> by Jake Mengers (US, MPC, 2’43”)

9. <UP (making off)> by pete Docter (US, Pixar Animation Studio, 3’19”)

10. <Precise Peter> by Martin Schmidt (DE, 5’21”)

11. <Alma> by Rodrigi Blaas (ES, 5’23”)

Computer Musics & Sound Art (15 works)

1. <reho:5 horizons> by Ryoichi Kurokawa (JP, 7’59”)

2. <Cycloïd-E> by Michel Décosterd, André Décosterd(CH, Cod.Act, 3’52”)

3. <Champs de fouilles (Excavations) (audio only)> by Martin Bédard (CA, 10’57”)

4. <Harvest> by Olle Cornéer, Martin Lübcke (SE, 11’45”)

5. <abcdefghigklmnopqrstuvwxyz for iphone> Jörg Piringer (AT, 2’54”)

6. <216 prepared dc-motors / filler wire 1.0mm, 2009> by Zimoun (CH, 1’02”)

7. <FLAECHEN [Aus der Reihe RAUMGEFLECHTE]> by Julius Stahl (DE, 3’02”)

8. <The Prayer Drums> by Louis-Philippe Demers (CA/SG), Armin Purkrabek (AT/DE), Phillip Schulze (DE, 3’45”)

9. <TONSPUR für einen öffentlichen raum> by Georg Weckwerth (DE), Peter Szely (AT, 4’32”)

10. <Desibel> Maja S. K. Ratkje, Geir Hjetland, Bjørn Kolbrek, Torkil Sandsund, Wenche Wefring (NO, 3’15”)

11. <Heartchamberorchestra> by Erich Berger (AT/FI), Peter Votava (AT/DE, Terminalbeach, 5’33”)

12. <Glücklich auf dem Weg nach unten / Happy going South> by Hanna Hartman (SE, 5’)

13. <Adapting for Distortion> by Hiroaki Umeda (JP, 1’27”)

14. <INJECT> by Herman Kolgen (CA, 2’53”)

15. <BUG (audio only)> by Mark Bain (US/NL, 5’05”)

Interactive Art (3 works)

1. <The EyeWriter> by Zach Lieberman, James Powderly, Tony Quan, Evan Roth, Chris Sugrue (US), and Theo Watson (UK, 3’36”)

2. <Chorus> by United Visual Artists (UK, 1’39”)

3. <Taking Doors> by Julijonas Urbonas (LT, 3’58”)

Hybrid Art (3 works)

1. <Ear on Arm> by Stelarc (AU, 5’10”)

2. <Men in Grey> by Julian Oliver (NZ/DE), Danja Vasiliev (RU/DE, 3’11”)

3. <Ocular Revision> by Paul Vanouse (US, 4’11”)

u19-freestyle computing (8 works)

1. <Chindogu> by Johannes Masanz (AT, 3’07”)

2. <Der weiβe Hai> by Matthias Riedler (AT, 11”)

3. <Vom Himmel gefallen> by Michael Schmidl (AT, 6’51”)

4. <Over the top: Episode 1> by Tarek Khalifa (AT, 4’05”)

5. <ASYL> by Thomas Gatt, Manuel Tilgner (AT, BG/BGR Sillgasse, 1’50”)

6. <Move it> by Julia Molnar, Bianca Biedrawa, Yuliya Potapova (AT, 2’08”)

7. <More than just a box> by Florian Grünberger (AT, 18”)

8. <trashed> by Florian Grünberger (AT, 41”)

PRESENTATION

ARTIST TALK Hojun SONG

Hojun SONG

ARTIST TALK Suntag NOH

reallyGood, Murder

“The trouble is not that they are coldblooded enough to 'think the unthinkable,'but that they do not think.”1

The beginning of the problem was his confession.

Should he not have confessed?

He was a baby-faced 22 years old.

A young man who had a dream of flying in the blue sky, and who dutifully walked down, step by step, the path before him. I guess inside him must have wiggled a young man’s desire for a little exciting romance, too. He walked for 4 years. He sweated for 4 years. He arrived at a point that one could call “the end”.

The problem seems to have started when he looked back.

Why did he not remember the warning of the angels that had descended to punish ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’ with brimstone and fire?

Maybe Lot’s wife, who had looked back against the warning not to, transcended time and space and came and whispered irresistibly tempting words to him. In any case, he looked back. To see what kind of path the 4 years had been.

The problem became bigger when he tried to look into the future.

That was the real reason he should not have looked back. He who

Suntag

NOH

looks back on his path is bound to reflect on its course ahead. That was the decisive mistake that he should not have committed, the final trigger. The first thing that is absolutely forbidden! All those who attack are forbidden to reflect on the attack!

Let’s say it was ‘reflection’. In fact, it wasn’t anything.

Since it wasn’t anything, that’s what it’s being called, so why did it become a problem?

Let’s say it was a ‘confession’.

Even so, it wasn’t anything. Since it wasn’t anything, that’s the only way it can be called. So what was all the fuss about anyway?

He wrote a short diary on his blog.

“F15K, you’re a really good machine, but you look like a murdering machine to me these days. I’m disturbed. I will be operating this machine, but I guess I may end up killing by mistake people who do not need to die.”

- Reflection on the machine

- Reflection on good machines

- Reflection that they may be murdering machines

- This disturbing reflection

The biggest problem of all the problems erupted when the common‐

ARTIST TALK

reallyGood, Murder

sense anguish of the 4th year Air Force Academy cadet was made into a question in an exam by ‘some students who were crazy about solving problems’. They were fundamentalist philosophers who believed that the existence of “something that isn’t anything” always originated from “something”, and were extractionists who had uncovered that all reflections were conceived from leftist delusions and incestuous breeding. The almighty ability of these students lied in their capacity to fit any problem into their prefabricated answers.

The carpet bombing of the conservative press started. Before he could get on a bomber and push any button, he became battered by the surprise, lightening carpet bombing. The bombing in his reflections had become reality, only reversed, under different circumstances. JoongAng Bombing Daily led the way, supported by Chosun Bombing Ilbo. According to their editorials, the Air Force Academy cadet was someone with “anti-military, proCommunist thoughts who could not be trusted with a 100 billion won per unit F-15K, and who has been contaminated with the leftist education of the Teachers and Educational Workers Union.”

Suntag NOH

He even became, without realizing it himself, “someone who openly writes Communist statements on his blog.” The irresponsible and excessive language of the press was enough to change reflection to delusion. The “something that isn’t anything” became “something.” His path of 4 years was severed then and there.

- A good gun, no matter how good it is, is born to kill.

- A good gun is a gun that kills people well.

- A good bomber, no matter how good it is, is born for mass murder.

- A good bomber is a bomber that kills people well.

- Even without Hannah Arendt’s assertion, the gene of violence is the ‘means’.

- The means speaks on behalf of violence.

The means of violence, in particular those that are controlled by the state, are the spokespersons for this century’s state-of-theart precision sciences. From the elementary sciences of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology to the many applied sciences such as precision machinery engineering, optics, electromagnetics, and so on, the modern engine behind these sciences has been none other

ARTIST TALK

than war. It’s necessary to think about the tight relationship that the weapons economy has with international politics. The fact that in modern history advances in weaponry equaled advances in science, the irrefutable fact that such advances were the object of a nation’s praise and patronage… Nevertheless, the forbidden ‘reflection on facts’… And the painting of those who do as communists…

The global trend of weapons shows disguised as festivals has also arrived in Korea.

The state, corporations, arms dealers, and regional communities hold these extravagant shows hand in hand, for national security, for the reinforced Korean-American alliance, for corporations who have dedicated themselves to the development of state-of-theart sciences, for strengthening international competitiveness, for fostering regional tourism, for educating children, and for everything else you can think of. It’s show time.

Air shows, helicopter rappel shows, tank shows, machine gun shows, missile shows, be‐a‐pilot shows, mine shows, chemical, biological and radiological weapons shows, anti‐terrorism shows, nighttime

infiltration shows, military uniforms shows, army biscuit shows, all sorts of shows…

The climax of the spectacle is the fantastic super operation using A-10 Thunderbolt fighter-bombers and the AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters to rescue our troops who have been taken hostage by the enemy. The firm determination that anyone messing with our side will not be forgiven, and the warm humanism of valorizing each and every soldier on our side down to the last guy form the essence of this operation. Let’s not mention the ‘gratuitous sacrifices’ that the operation may inadvertently entail. Ridley Scott’s film Black Hawk Down illustrates the development of the tight sense of camaraderie and poignant humanism all too well.

Every time a bomb explodes, every time a shouting order is echoed, applause and cheers follow. “Hurrah, bravo!”

Yes, hurrah, bravo…

Maybe it was ‘hurrah, bravo’.

The cadet in question upon mounting the good F15K machine and pushing down the red button should have shouted “Hurrah, bravo”, nothing more, nothing less.

It was an ‘anguish’ that is not

ARTIST TALK

ARTIST

allowed in those who attack. And what is not allowed for viewers of imaginary bombing attacks is ‘feeling disturbed’.

Warning: Perception Requires Involvement.2

Those who are mired in forbidden anguishes, forbidden perceptions, forbidden memories, forbidden thoughts dream of escape. But escaping is not allowed; only forced ejections await them.

Let us, at this point, recall a forbidden memory.

On the morning of August 6, 1945 at 8:16 and 2 seconds, the dream of the superweapon became a reality. The first atomic bomb with strength equaling 12,500 tons of dynamite dropped out of the skies of Hiroshima without any warning. A new kind of war had started. The first second of the new war went like this.

0.0 second: The bomb goes off at the peak of the morning rush hour, at approximately 600 meters above the Shima Hospital located in the center of Hiroshima. The temperature of the city center reaches the millions in degrees Celsius in one 1 millionth of a second.

0.1 second: A fire pillar of approximately 300,000 degrees Celsius measuring 15 meters in diameter is formed. At the same time, neutrons and gamma rays reach the earth, and cause direct radiation damage to living organisms.

0.15 second: The fire pillar grows bigger, and the radioactive waves spread even faster. The air is heated to a bright red.

0.2-0.3 second: An incalculable amount of infrared rays are emitted, inflicting burns on people.

1.0 second: The fire pillar reaches its biggest size, becoming 200-300 meters in diameter. The waves that escalated the fire continue to spread at the speed of sound.

With this bombing attack, 100,000 people died on the spot. And another 100,000 died, slowly, one by one, due to the radiation exposure.3

These disturbing memories, these disturbing thoughts, these disturbing scenes, these strange loyalties, these good and murderous machines...

reallyGood, Murder

Suntag NOH

Once again, I borrow Hannah Arendt’s words.

“Where all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing.”4

What the heck does that mean?

Warning: Sago Requires Sago.5

1) Hannah Arendt, 1969, On Violence, trans. Jung Han Kim, Seoul: E-who Publishing Co., 2000, p28.

2) This phrase comes from the artwork that Antonio Muntadas translated and exhibited in different languages. It could mean that perception inevitably requires to involvement, or also that the prerequisite of involvement is perception. To this, a “warning” is added, which I understand as “You may get hurt if you know this”, which, reversed, could also be understood as “It’s better not to know this.”

3) Sven Lindqvist, 2001, A History of Bombing, translated in Korean by Nam Soeb Kim, Hankyoreh Publishing Co.,2003, p240.

4) Hannah Arendt, 1969, On Violence, translated in Korean by Jung Han Kim, E-who Publishing Co., 2000.

5) NOH Suntag copying Mr. Muntadas The term of ‘Sago’ has two meanings in Korean, ‘thinking’ and ‘disaster’.

ARTIST

ARTIST TALK

ARTIST

EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATIONJunghwan SUNG, Euisang OH, MinJu LEE

1/10

2/10

Junghwan SUNG, Euisang OH, MinJu LEE

3/10

4/10

Junghwan SUNG, Euisang OH, MinJu LEE

EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATION

7/10

8/10

Junghwan SUNG, Euisang OH, MinJu LEE

EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATIONJongsoo KWON

2/14

3/14

4/14

7/14

8/14

Jongsoo KWON

12/14 11/14

EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATIONYouno PARK, Jaewoong KIM

1/10

2/10

Youno PARK, Jaewoong KIM

3/10

4/10

Youno PARK, Jaewoong KIM

8/10 7/10

Youno PARK, Jaewoong KIM

EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATIONSungdae HONG

Sungdae HONG

1/20

2/20

Sungdae HONG

EDUCATIONAL

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP 1 Being creative workshop - Seungjoon CHOI + Kyungjin LEE

1. Workshop Outline

This is a teacher’s workshop learning how to help kids to use open source creative tools like MyPaint, GIMP, Inkscape, Blender, Audacity, and Scratch. The participants will not only learn basic creative tools but also will be asked to develop inspiring educational programs using those tools. This process is more than experiencing simple tutorial tools with regards to learning new media as participants experience active collaboration and exploration which requires leadership. It is a 2-day (each day over 4 hrs) workshop. The teams organized on the first day will carry out the mission of creating educational program using creative tools that they would learn in the form of team assignment. On the second day, each team will test and improve each other’s workshop. It is a workshop not for learning creative tools but for relationship between people. Though it takes a context of new media, it is a workshop about raising awareness as to applying timeless possibilities and energy of human.

With the objective of using open source and making educational program for kids, this workshop aims to provide a chance to experience full transfer of

learning mechanism which makes it possible to continue to make the use of the knowledge that participants have learned from this workshop.

2. Workshop Process

2.1. Day 1

2.1.1. Introduction of a work called ‘self-organizing elements’ http://goo.gl/1GLc7

Within the framework of selforganizing elements, the importance of participants share learning and increase, as a team, energy like an organism was informed in the form of generative art.

generative art: HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Generative_art" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Generative_art

WORKSHOP

2.1.2. Basic tool setup

Following basic online tools based on Web 2.0 were to be prepared.

- GMail account

- Google Docs

- Google Spreadsheet: http://goo.gl/vOynw

- Dropbox account

- Dropbox shared folder

First, HYPERLINK "http://goo. gl/vOynw" http://goo.gl/vOynw was secured where contents are documented as we progress under a specific link.

2.1.3. Introduction of Creative Tools (Open source/ Freeware)

Following basic online tools based on Web 2.0 were to be downloaded on each laptop.

2.1.4. Marshmallow Challenge

Marshmallow Challenge, a 14-minute short workshop that Tom Wujec has introduced at TED was exercised.

Marshmallow Challenge is a workshop realizing the meaning of coorporation and the importance of prototyping by competing which team of four builds the tallest structure in 14 minutes using 20 sticks of spaghetti, one meter of tape, and one marshmallow.

2.1.5. Demonstration of how to use creative tools

Starting with Scratch(http://scratch. mit.edu), Open source/ Freeware creative tools were introduced briefly.

It was a short demonstration but not a lecture oriented approach that one teaches the full practice of tools.

2.1.6. Pair Drawing

For the next workshop that participants had to explore creative tools on their own, each pair experienced working in collaboration for five minutes by drawing in turn without words.

Seungjoon CHOI + Kyungjin LEE

2.1.7. Exploring Creative Tool Workshop

A pair chose one of the creative tools that they have learned and as did in pair drawing exercise, they worked the selected tools in turn and gave each other some feedbacks. Each took about 10 minutes and repeated the process for 40 minutes. When the participants explore creative tools, the structure is as follows.

The type of this approaching tool is called ‘pair programming’ which is actually employed in the field of IT industry.

WORKSHOP

2.1.8. Sharing what they have found in the process of exploring Creative tool workshop

Each pair shared explored contents with four members in the team, and then each team shared with other teams.

2.1.9. Brainstorming using Brain writing technique: Idea development for children’s workshop

Before anything else, the participants did Brain writing which is writing down whatever comes to mind first, passing it around for everyone to read and adding various comments.

Based on the experience of exploring creative tools, each student developed possibilities for children’s workshop as they made comments on each other’s ideas like an organism. The end results were posted on the wall.

2.1.10. Homework

The first day of the workshop was wrapped up with the following two sets of homework were handed out for the second day.

Explore creative tools introduced today.

Think about possible playground to introduce healthy digital culture when you are in the situation where you must introduce digital culture to children.

Day 2

2.2.1. Check Homework

Introduced the homework from the first day and checked students’ homework. It seemed they are not that ready yet.

2.2.2. Check-In

Presented the ‘Morning Page’ tool and prepared the participants for the next workshop procedures. The ‘Morning Page’ is introduced in the book called The Artist’s Way. Following is how we have executed the ‘Morning Page’.

- Prepare a pen and a sheet of paper.

- Secure safe and private space.

- Write down whatever comes to mind for five minutes without a break.

- Try to fill out the whole page.

- Must not stop writing. If there is nothing to put down, just go ahead and write down any words even though they are meaningless.

- Do not share the contents with anyone else as it may contain very personal things. Tear it after five minutes. But if there is anything important to remember, write it down somewhere else.

- The implication of this activity is like a flowing river. Let thoughts flow.

Seungjoon CHOI + Kyungjin LEE

2.2.3. Simulation Workshop

Now the participants were given a situation where they have just established a venture company. Consisted of four members, each team represented a venture company. Simulation workshop is a tool that puts participants in a situation where they have no choice but to work in cooperate with creativity and learn creative cooperation as they interact with other team and how to deal with conflicts occurring under different circumstances.

- They have just set up a venture company that develops various workshops for children using digital creative tools introduced on the first day.

- They have certain amount of funds received from an investor. Pistachios are used as virtual money in this workshop.

*The Artist’s Way: Written by Julia Cameron, Translated by Lim Ji Ho

WORKSHOP

- Each company selects a CEO.

- A CEO has a right to appoint the role of each team member and has a responsibility to pay the employees including him/herself.

- There are 30 to 40 minutes sessions of two that company can develop a workshop. After the first session, each company will test the draft that other rival companies are developing. This will be an opportunity to evaluate each other and exchange ideas.

- Following the test, each CEO pays from the reserved investment fund. (CEO decides

whether to pay differently based on employees’ performances or evenly.

- After the payment, the personnel realignment is forced. (Each company fires one person and recruits another from a different team.)

- The second session begins under the situation that a talented person is kicked out or hired.

- The final results are presented in front of an investor.

- Symbolically award the one who are paid the most (pistachios) and finish the workshop looking back the significance of this Simulation workshop.

2.2.4. Share presentation using new media tool

The participants were asked to make presenting materials using Google presentation tool and shared in the next URL. http://goo.gl/vOynw This process itself is also a workshop using new media.

In the case of the team mad-horse corp from the Simulation workshop, they have produced a prototype of tutorial for children that can be used in the Scratch workshop and even shared it using dropbox.

Some sections from the presentation by the team Luck CloVer

*The team Millionaire had a problem with saving the project so they had to present with posters instead.

2.2.5. Writer’s workshop

Introduced Writer’s workshop as a tool that teaches how to criticize a creation peacefully and heighten its potential, and it is executed with the team Millionaire. The way to do Writer’s workshop is as follows.

- Welcome a writer.

- Present a summary of a work that the writer wishes to do. (It was a team presentation in this case.)

- A writer becomes ‘a fly on the wall’. He/she is there with other participants but takes a role of only a careful listener stepped aside.

- Give ‘positive feedback for the shared creation to the rest of the participants except the writer who became ‘a fly on the wall’. Talk freely about only the positive aspects of the

Seungjoon CHOI + Kyungjin LEE

WORKSHOP

creation (do not interact with the writer) and as he/she listens carefully, the writer recognizes the positive features of his/her creation.

- Subsequent to ‘positive feedback’ session, talk about things that are missing or need to be improved in the same manner. Give comments with an attitude of how to discover and develop potential that the original creation holds.

- Now the writer, ‘a fly on the wall’, comes back as a person and does not defend but questions that he/she could not understand from the feedback. The one leading the workshop should pay special attention at this point since the debate could be overheated. He/ she should prevent unnecessary discussion suggesting it to continue after the workshop only with the people of interests.

- The writer has a sole right to change the creation reflecting various feedbacks. Take only the needed components from the given information.

- Thank everyone and finish the Writer’s workshop.

The workshop concept of the team Millionaire was a ‘camp in island’. They created a workshop that children swim, play and collaborate to make a storytelling creation in island with open source creative tools in their laptops or computers, and see the results at night with their parents. And through the Writer’s workshop, they exchanged a variety of feedbacks and had discussion on how to improve further. Only thing that mattered was that the workshop was done not in English but in Malaysian for the sake of smooth flow of the workshop preventing precise understanding of the procedure.

2.2.5. Realtime Documentation

Make a video from the pictures taken in every section of the workshop and play it with music before the end of the workshop, reflecting the experiences of the day.

The participants can identify what they have done and look back what they have practiced on that day. This is one of the elements consisting this workshop as well, implying that digital and new media tools can be used actively in a workshop. From a general point of view, this process also is a chance to learn a workshop tool that can be reused through the first hand experience.

Seungjoon CHOI + Kyungjin LEE

3. Conclusion

3.1. The first day feedback

Conducted an informal survey using Google docs. The application method of Google form was introduced at the beginning of the second day workshop. Most of the participants displayed interests and showed positive reactions as to the possibilities that the open source/ freeware creative tools have. Also there were some participants who were interested in tools and methods of collaboration.

WORKSHOP

3.2. The second day feedback

Following structure called ‘retrospectives’ was used on the second day.

The participants were asked to write down positive, missing, to be improved or impressive features of the workshop.

They shared and commented within their team, and had a time to share it all together presenting a team summary.

They showed their interests to recreate what they have done in the two-day workshop and gave positive feedbacks on overall contents of the workshop. Especially there was a feedback saying that more than learning the usefulness of creative tools like open source/ freeware, this workshop itself was a motivation. Of course the time lacking or communication language issues were shared without a doubt.

Seungjoon CHOI + Kyungjin LEE

3.3. Conclusion

The point that were emphasized in the two-day workshop was that this does not end as a one-time event but continues as I introduce useful tools for creation and collaboration, and goes further to give energy and motivation to challenge to do something with those tools. Judging from the feedbacks that I got, it seems that there is some sort of desired outcome but it is hard to identify positive changes in the short period of time. Though some channels to communicate with workshop participants using SNS services were arranged but it is yet to be known whether this could be an active interaction enough to exchange concrete help or mentor.

But I felt a sense of satisfaction from the fact that first, the relationship has formed and caused a stir as I reflect upon the twoday workshop from the point of culture sharing view, setting aside a workshop producer perspectives of delivering knowledge or learning. The lingering impression is that there were participants who considered the early stage of the Marshmallow challenge as this has not happened in the previous experiments. What is the cultural context that has caused this kind of different pattern? If this project continues in the next year, I wish to make more opportunities not to deliver knowledge in one direction but to learn in both ways. Maybe this is the reason why the next is anticipated.

Seungjoon CHOI + Kyungjin LEE

WORKSHOP 2 Making game with Kinect

- James POWDERLY

1. Presentation Works of James 2. How to make game using Kinect

WORKSHOP

1. About Movement

2. Dissccusion & Brainstorming

1. Drawing

2. Making logo & elements

James POWDERLY

Animating with computer

Coding

James POWDERLY

PICNIC TO THE MANUTAK ISLAND

TO THE MANUTAK ISLAND

CODA: Play,Interact, Organize

In the Inchon International airport, baggage is lined up in front of the check-in desk. The suitcases are rather light and simple, compared to everyone’s heavy luggage full of digital equipments: Laptop, tablet PC, smart phone, projector, digital camera (camcorder), physical computing sensor, AD board, speakers, kinetic camera, and varied web 2.0 applications. We bring these along with our suitcases to the Digital New Media Center at Yayasan Sabah College in the Kota Kinabalu Island.

The preparation for the event was long and tiresome. Art exhibition in the island? Nothing was certain at first. We were not even sure about the size of space for exhibitions and workshops, let alone the availability of all those equipments needed. We have exchanged numerous emails with our kind, attentive host and staffs in the college. Many preparation meetings have been held. After numerous meetings, emails, and phone calls, we finally boarded the plane to the island.

Soochul KIM

This is the first time that many of us have ever been to the island or Malaysia. Warm weather greeted us. Warm welcome from our hosts and students followed. The place was not spacious but not too small either. A neat and well-maintained two-story building has several rooms. The preparation was almost perfect. Students were more than helpful. The host always makes sure everything is okay. Interactions with students in the college were unique, rich, and dynamic. Through a number of workshops we watched, listened, created, and discussed together. Using the open source tools available on the web, participants tried to create something together and learned what open source and collaboration mean. While learning about how to build satellite by ourselves, participants could see how much they can do with our digital devices available. While we were juggling with laptops, tablet PCs, digital cameras, kinetic cameras, projectors, sensors, and even children’s toys, we discussed about what has been going on with

Soochul KIM

interactive media art and how it will transform in the future. Going through a number of workshops, exhibitions, discussions, meetings, and a picnic, we were all exhausted.

“This is just a start.” One of our generous hosts said. Yes. It is just a start. But we do not know yet how it will end. We do not know yet where our unique experiences and dynamic interactions with students in the island will lead us to. Many theorists have long speculated about how our digital technology might inspire different ways of understanding on our world. Many researchers and artists attempted to show how the usage of digital technology affects our activities and cultures. One thing is certain. We are only at the beginning stage of understanding what kinds of impacts these technologies may have on the ways in which we know, communicate, and interact. There are still many things worth trying in order to make sense of what we can do with these technologies. In this process, Digital Playground in Island can function as a civic

playground where digital technology allows people to play, interact, and organize in more engaged and diverse manners. Crossing over the boundaries of nations, languages, religions as well as disciplines, it should tell us about new possible ways of connecting, gathering, interacting, and organizing. The collection of art works here is to show what happened, while groups of artists and students were exchanging and sharing their ideas and stories. This collection, I hope, is worth a second glance.

PLAY,INTERACT, ORGANIZE

Credit

Host

Digital New Media Center, Kolej Yayasan Sabah in Malaysia

Curator

Sungdae HONG, Nathalie Boseul SHIN

Assistant Curator

Yoonsun SHIN, Sabina Yeowoon LEE

Project Co-ordinator

Soochul KIM, Hyunmi JUNG

Excutive Manager in Malaysia

Sylvester Fung

(Business Development Manager, Kolej Yayasan Sabah)

Coordinator in Malaysia

Marina Abdul Ghanie

(Animation Program Project Manager, Digital New Media Center)

Photo and Making Film

Yoona SON(Aliceon)

Collaboration with Soongsil Univ., Lab.preparat, Total Museum of Contemporary Art, Kolej Yayasan Sabah

Playground in island 2010

HELLO~ KOTA KINABALU

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL INFORMATION

EXHIBITION

EXHIBITION

Showcase installation

Screening Digital Animation & Experimental Film

Screening Video - collaboration with <Coffee with Sugar> project

Screeningcollaboration with Netfilmmakers

Screening Prix Arts Electronica 2010 <CyberArts 2010>collaboration with ARS ELECTRONICA

PRESENTATION

ARTIST TALK Hojun SONG

ARTIST TALK Suntag NOH

reallyGood, Murder

Suntag

NOH

ARTIST TALK

reallyGood, Murder

Suntag NOH

ARTIST TALK

ARTIST TALK

ARTIST

reallyGood, Murder

Suntag NOH

ARTIST

ARTIST TALK

ARTIST

EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATIONJunghwan SUNG, Euisang OH, MinJu LEE

EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATION

EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATIONJongsoo KWON

EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATIONYouno PARK, Jaewoong KIM

EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATIONSungdae HONG

EDUCATIONAL

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP 1 Being creative workshop - Seungjoon CHOI + Kyungjin LEE

1. Workshop Outline

2.1. Day 1

WORKSHOP

Seungjoon CHOI + Kyungjin LEE

WORKSHOP

Day 2

Seungjoon CHOI + Kyungjin LEE

WORKSHOP

WORKSHOP

Seungjoon CHOI + Kyungjin LEE

WORKSHOP

Seungjoon CHOI + Kyungjin LEE

3.3. Conclusion

WORKSHOP 2 Making game with Kinect

- James POWDERLY

WORKSHOP

PICNIC TO THE MANUTAK ISLAND

TO THE MANUTAK ISLAND

TO THE MANUTAK ISLAND

CODA: Play,Interact, Organize

Credit