When thinking about the successes and failures of our artifact and the message that it conveyed, much comes to mind for me. Our concept of a dining table that collapses or falls apart when a phone is picked up and used and reassembled when the phone is placed back on the table proved to be not that difficult to physically create a cardboard prototype for. The construction of the table itself was straightforward in my opinion, but I do have to say that I wish the prototype was built at a dining table's full scale rather than the smaller version we had created. I think another issue we had come across was a way to show how the phone connects to the table and how, when it is picked up, we can show the table "disassembling."
My responsibilities during this whole process of idea generation, building the prototype, creating the storyline for the performance, etc. was relatively widespread. We all were very collaborative throughout the whole process, working together for every step. We thought this way of addressing the project, rather than splitting responsibilities, would work in our favor more, that way everyone could fully understand how and why we made what we made, including the logic and story behind it. It worked out that we were all available to work together in the studio at the same time, and everyone was very receptive and willing to help at all stages, as well as prompt in communication.
I think overall, the artifact did successfully convey the interaction we intended which is the getting to the core of where the disconnect occurs. We took the problem to the root and wanted to strip it down to where things are learned and brought to society, which was to us, a familial setting. Another point we would have thought about was how this artifact could be monetized and sold as a product. We hadn't asked questions like, "Where and how would this be sold?" or "Would it be sold as a table itself or an attachment that could universally work for all tables?" These kinds of questions were neglected and should have been acknowledged.
Here is a video of our peers' presentation of their project titled "COOL"!
This group, overall, did a great job not only in prototyping and designing a creative artifact, but in conveying the value of their artifact in the scenario they chose. The name of their performance was a relatively literal one, but I think gave off a fun vibe which matched the energy of their performance overall. Their artifact, an air conditioning machine that activates once a game is played with two people, was a creative way to address the disconnect experienced in the hypothetical futuristic society. A critique I have of their overall concept, is that they are addressing the disconnection of in person interaction due to the influence of digital devices with another digital device. For improvement's sake, I think a more creative, non-digital solution to the problem would be more applicable, instead of essentially fighting fire with fire. But overall, the idea is a unique and fun way to bring people physically together and as a mechanism to meet more people.