Presenting a presentation proclaiming the presentation’s presence as the presenter, proves potentially problematic. Perhaps, providing peculiar paths and purposes, propel the project’s purpose, whilst piercing preconceived projections of presentation payoffs.
Processes proceedings precautions.
Hand-cut. Hand-lined. Hand-written. Hand-ordered. Hand-censored. Hand-bound.
New numbers, new summations and to build, create and summit. Submit? To build for design, rather than design for the build. I hate numbers, but oh they almost sing in tangents upon tangents, bars of the unnecessary, the meaningless charges of choice notes.
Taking some time to process completely new methods and programs of working. Developing games through text, and being soul solo project within said module is highly pressuring. Many issues have occurred and fall backs from lack of system knowledge and experimentation. However, guidance from Lewis has proved essential. Whilst also acknowledging the limits of Twine itself, allows frustrations to fade and be replaced by clearer focus.
Additionally, new ideas have arisen, not just to produce a okay through game as a presentation, but involving the presentation as an entity. How might truth be reshaped in the process of presenting?
Truth is usually perceived in titles, titles being the summation and declaration of content. Thereby, which title stands true? The intended or the perceived?
Lewis and I developed a system of story evolution. In beginning the cycle simply base on the concept of ‘post-truth’, the first book was written and titled by Lewis, then without sharing the title read and interpreted by myself, who retitles the book, the new title inspiring the next story. However now a singular book dons two names. One being the author’s one being the reader’s.
No.1: Vendit Vidit Mentitum – – – One Truth, One Lie
No.2: I Blame the Parents – – – Whose Gray
No.3: Watching Paint Dry – – – A Hell by Any Other Name
No.4: Science according to Dennis – – – In Fact and Flair
No.5: Words Taken – – – Escapism is an Art
No.6: Adventures in Arbitrary – – – Stan’s Kafka
No.7: Sans Content – – – Before, then If
4) Post-truth is not based in evidence (J)
5) Post-truth is not subject to rationality (J)
7) Post-truth is not decisive (J)
8) Post-truth is not manageable (J)
When the seemingly mundane and usually hidden act of binding is put to the forefront, how might the aesthetics of the presentation more literally bind across the content of said subject?
Lewis and I pursued the interest and the question:
How might content be both concealed and revealed in the binding of a book?
In collaboration with Megan, redaction, censorship, concealing, and in the act therefore revealing. To develop systems of purposeful removal and obvious non-inclusion. To develop a piece of writing, where nothing can be an ‘is’, in fact and most clearly in truth all must be in ‘not’s. To deny and thereby bring into question is all that is potentially reliable in answering questions with ‘truth’. For no genuine statement can possess unquestionable truth, due to its nature as a statement of confirmation.
Additionally, to collaborate in creation for a written piece, holds new challenge. A potential for exploration, experimentation and reviewing role. To print, or to hand-bind. To challenge or to truth in bias systems. To write without allegation.