Digital Media Level 3 Semester B

Building upon my own research and experience, as well as the feedback from the exhibition, there are some changes that I would make to ‘Digital Seance’ if I would be to host the event again.

The first point is the location. Although the space used had enough space and available resources to host the event, it was not the most ideal venue. The setting of the location could have been further adapted to the theme, but starting in a location that better matches the theme would assist in creating the atmosphere for the audience, and feel more ‘real’ for the event. The space needed to be darker as well. Although the windows were covered up as much as they could have been, it still was not dark enough for all the projections to be crystal clear. A darker location would have much improve the quality of the event.

The amount of interactivity would be increased. Whilst there were limited elements that fully immersed the audience, more of these elements would have benefitted the event. Instead of just looking at the artefacts, the audience could have been further engaged with them. Adding new exhibits, as well as making the previous ones, like the map, more audience interactive would further engage them in the piece; making it a more enjoyable and memorable experience as a whole.

Tweaking of the audio will be a key part of hosting another exhibition. Although clear in a contained space, the audio was less understandable when played into a noise room with other things going on. Additional testing of the audio could have allowed for this to have been change ahead of the first exhibition, but will be tweaked for any subsequent ones. More varied audio, or making the audio less repetitive, would improve this element of the exhibition, as it was rated low amongst the guests that attended.

The number of exhibits would be increased for a second exhibition. As positive feedback was given about some of the elements, most notably the Haunted Photo, increasing the number of exhibits like this would add more for the audience to take in. Hosting a bigger event of more artefacts would solve some of the previously mentioned issues, as well as allowing me to try out new content. Using the established features as a basis, different elements could be integrated to expand on what already exists in Digital Seance. As 100% of guests said they would return if there was new content, there is already an established audience for a second, bigger event. Word of mouth would also allow this event to be more popular. By combining the well-received elements of the current iteration of Digital Seance in with new ones, the event could expand and attract a larger audience. These new features, and tweaked old ones, would improve the exhibition for a second event.

After the exhibition had taken place, I sent surveys out to the guests that attended, in order to gain some feedback on the exhibition as a whole.

The first questions asked guests about there favourite, and least favourite attractions. The Haunted Photo came up as the most popular attraction, with the Seance and the Ghost Arms also being notable by other guests who attended. The Map and the Audio Ghost Stories came up as the joint worst attraction. From this it is clear that the map and stories need to be altered before the event is held again. These elements could be combined, adding another layer of interactivity for the audience. As the most popular, the haunted photo will be bought back if there is a repeat of the event. More haunted photos could be created, each using different ideas and setting to make them change. These could also be intertwined with static photos, making the moving ones stand out more; and allow the static ones to confuse the audience as they would expect them to move, but do not.

The next question asked how clearly each of the exhibits could be seen. The Map and the Photo had 100% positivity and were ‘crystal clear.’ The Seance and the Ghost Arms got positive reviews, but it was stated that they could have been clearer. For future events, a darker location will be used to mitigate this factor, as well as steps being taken to try and make the projections stand out on the wall more.

When asked what could improve the experience, reoccurring subjects came up. More interactivity in the exhibits was the main one. Whilst the Ghost Arms featured audience participation, none of the other exhibits were interactive. All respondents sated that more interactivity should be added to any future versions of the event. By added more to the Map, and combining it with the audio, and letting the audience decide which story to hear about would add another level of interactivity. Further to this, another exhibit could be developed based around audience interaction, to get them more included into the exhibition as a whole. The other big issue was the audio. It was stated that it became ‘too repetitive’ and wasn’t very clear. This issue is solved in the same way as the interactivity, by combining it with the Map as previously stated. The reverb in the stories will also be tweaked, to make the content clearer. A longer base audio track will be used in future exhibitions, to avoid silence, but to be less repetitive.

Originally, the Seance was going to be conducted live, but this element was cut and pre-recorded was opted for instead; so I asked attendees if they would have preferred a live Seance. Although it was stated as a good idea, it was said that the actions between the live actor and the pre-recorded was interesting and engaging. It was stated the technical issues in doing the Seance live was the main point that turned people off the idea. From this, it is clear that the audience would prefer the content to work without issues, then risk issues for the further interactivity.

From the feedback, the historical content was rated highly, roughly a 7.5 out of 10. This shows that the audience was engaged in the history of Lincoln outlined in the Seance, and learnt something new; but more steps need to be taken before the event can be marketed as an ‘educational’ piece, which would open it up to a wider target audience. Further research into the topic, and having characters appear from different era’s of history could for fill this category.

Overall, the event was a success, as it came highly rated from the guests that attended the event. The survey results rate the exhibition as a whole 8.5/10, showing the audience was engaged and interested in the event. 100% of attendees said they would return to a second exhibition if the content was updated; showing the effectiveness of the piece as a concept. Further development and new original content would attract people back to the event, showing the success of the first exhibition.

On Friday April 7th, I hosted the event Digital Seance in St Mark’s in Lincoln. The exhibition contained all of the elements I had previously worked on collected in one space for audience members to experience.

Before the event could take place, the venue had to be set up and set dressed. Due to limitations on time and what I was allowed to do in the space, not all of the intended set-dressing elements could be included. The main focus was eating up the space in order to project all of the different elements in there own space where they could be seen. Each of the exhibits; the Ghost Arms, the Haunted Photo, the Map of Hauntings, and the Seance, were all projected in there own space, The projectors were set up away from each other, and attempts were made to hide each of the different projectors. Old-looking books were stacked around the projectors, and pieces of fabric played over then to hide them as best as I could. These stylistic choices embedded the materials into the scene, and kept them disguised, to an extent, to the audience. However, 2 of the projectors were close together, and it was not practical or safe to hide them, so they were left in the open. Other elements, such as skeletons and masked were also around the room, in order to build up the mise-en-scene.

In order to make the projections as clear as possible, the room was darkened as much as it could have been. Paper was used to cover all the windows, and the lights reminded off. This made the room darker, and the projections clearer. However, if the room could’ve been darkened further, it would have made the projections more effective.

The Ghost Arms were the first piece set up for the exhibition. Displayed against a wall, an actor was used to gauge where the arms needed to be to look like they were on people. A mark on the floor was put down to direct people to the best spot to stand to make the piece as effective as possible. This footage was played on loop, allowing the audience to step in whenever, without a worry of having the replay the footage every time. Where this projector was uncovered, it could also be adjusted if necessary for an audience member; however this was not needed throughout the course of the exhibition. This installation worked effectively, as the arms could clearly be seen on the different patrons. Audience members initially had to be directed to the piece, but once one had been in, others were more open to taking part.

The haunted photograph was not the next key piece. This was the brightest of the projected exhibits, as it needed to be the smallest, the distance between the wall and the projector could be reduced. This film was projected into a picture-frame, giving it the effect of being a portrait. Although it was not alongside other paintings or photos as originally intended, it was displayed alongside a pair of hanging masks, to make the frame more incorporated into the scene. The changes in the picture looked effective and could clearly be seen throughout the course of the event. However, the length of time between all of the changes may have been too long, and too quick when they did happen, as they were easily missed by audience members due to these timings.

The Map of Lincoln’s hauntings was the next piece that was up during the exhibition. As this was a static map, audience members were less interested in this piece. However, with the addition of my own knowledge about the hauntings being told to the audience, they became more engaged. On it’s own, the map was the least effective piece of the exhibition, and in future, the stories should be directly incorporated into the map to make it more engaging in it’s own right.

Whilst all these pieces were set up throughout the exhibition, the Ghost Stories that were recorded were played. These were played on a loop, with the individual stories cut together with some music fitting the theme and tim period. These stories were too quiet and hard to understand, due to the effects put on them. The noise of the exhibition’s attendees also made these more difficult to hear. In future, these stories will be further incorporated into the map, improving both pieces by combining them together.

After the guests had experienced all of the different elements, I hosted the Digital Seance itself. I gathered the people around and directed them to where they could see the Seance. I then played the footage, and acted out the live portion of the piece. Due to lack of time, and the importance of timing, I read the script from a notebook. Although the visuals could have been clearer, the audio from both parties was easily heard, and the audience appeared to be engaged. The effects and transitions worked well when projected, and the timing between my speech and the recorded speech worked well, despite a few minor hiccups in the presentation itself. The appearance of the ghost matched up with how a real person would look, and the placement of the character made him look like he was interacting directly with myself. After the Seance itself, the audience could go back and experience the other parts of the exhibition once again.

Overall, each part of the exhibition was given its own space, and each piece could be enjoyed by the audience members passing through. The location had enough space for all the exhibits and guests, as well as all the technical aspects needed. However, further set dressing could have been used to improve the overall atmosphere of the exhibit. A tour of the exhibit can be seen here: https://youtu.be/QQ93mZBYbxE

Once deciding on the story and developing the script for the Digital Seance, the Seance itself had to be recorded. Due to the location’s lack of internet availability and the possible problems out-weighing the effectiveness of a live Seance, a pre-recorded option was opted for.

The first recording was shot on location. This was to make it as close to the surroundings as possible ready for the projection of the final piece. Ot was from this first recording session, that I realised changes to the script had to be made, These were tweaked on location, and the changes were present in later recordings in that session. It was from here that I also realised that it was difficult for the actor to conduct the entire script in one take, which is why transitions were tested off this original footage. To keep the dialogue solid and flowing, the actor read the script off the screen during the recording; this was not the most ideal method but time restraints prevented the actor from learning the script in it’s entirety. The lines that are to be spoken by myself in the exhibition were said during recording in order to give the correct timings in the final piece. These soundbites will be edited out of the recorded Seance.

After this first recording, I edited the piece together. This allowed me to test transitions, as well as practice with my timings of reading the other part of the script. Rehearsal time was important, in order to make the final delivery of the piece as successful as possible. With this final footage, I returned to the location to test it in context. However, once projected, the footage looked too different to the background to create the desired effect. Due to the brightness of the location, it was difficult to see the projection, and the light background would make it stand out too much against the darkness needed to make the projection more visible.

In order to mitigate these factors, I tried to remove the background completely, as this had previously been effective with the Ghost Arms. However, due to the lack of contrast between the background and actor, this was not possible. It was from here that a re-shoot was arranged, as the original footage was no longer usable for the exhibition.

This re-shoot was shot against a green screen, allowing for the background to be removed, leaving just the actor. This would look better against the dark wall that would be used in the exhibition. The scene was shot in the same way as the previous, as this the most effective method to do so. The script was positioned slightly to one side of the actor, meaning his eyes were off to one side whilst reading the script. This would relate to where myself and the audience will stand on the day of the exhibition, to make the ghost look more at us and more engaged in the conversation, as apposed to looking straight ahead.

It was from this second shoot the final footage for the exhibition was obtained. The choice photos were added in, and the ‘glitch’ effect was used to mask any other jumps. The opening and ending were created after refining the walking through walls effected that was previously tested. This footage was used for the rehearsals and for the final piece of the exhibition, and can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/smUTmshgsVM

Building on my research into Victorian photography, and having some of these photos for set dressing the exhibition, I worked on a way to project a photo that was different to the others. Elements in this photo would ‘come alive’ and the photo would move and change. These changes would be quick and brief, in order to confuse the audience, making them unsure if they saw any changes at all.

The idea for a photograph is to feature a person mourning at a grave. The photo would change by making the person at the grave move slightly. A person would appear see-through around the grave and join the mourner, representing the ghost of the person in the grave. Their hands will appear grasping the grave, and the person will also appear in full around it. The text on the grave will change as well; instead of reading something akin to ‘loved by wife’ to ‘murdered by wife’. The mourners face will also change to reflect this, being sly and smug as opposed to being sad.

To achieve this effect, a camera will be set up on a tripod. Once the picture is framed, the camera will not move. This will allow the subjects to move between photos, whilst the scene remains the same. Keeping the camera locked will be essential to the editing process, as this will only the subjects to change whilst the background remains the same. The different images can be changed and combined in order to create the movement and changes. The spectral figure can appear transparent in the photo, whilst the rest remains the same due to this layering effect.

The final photograph features a subject sitting at a grave. During the course of the duration, her head moves round, looking in different places; but focuses on one image. This image also features ghost hands appearing on the grave, and eventually a full person standing behind the grave looking down at the mourner. This layer has a lower opacity than the mourner, separating the ghost from the alive person. Although this does not follow standard Victorian aesthetics for photographing the dead, it fits more with the idea of a ghost picture. Although originally the text on the grave would change, this effect was not achievable, as the original grave text did not show up well in the photos; meaning changes to it would either be unseen, or out of place. To end the piece, both subjects; the ghost and the mourner, briefly look straight ahead, at the onlooker of the photograph. This direct nod to the audience is intended to add an additional factor of surprise to the moving photograph.