‘Lost and Found concert’ is about reclaiming the concert that I lost due to COVID-19. I designed an MR headset for a ‘local virtual concert’ to solve my problem. I concluded the project by performing in the outcome product and ‘reclaimed’ my lost concert. 

This was my concept of choice because I wanted to reflect on my past as a Hip-Hop musician and show my transition as a product designer. I had never directly worked with personal stories before, so I could test a different method of development through this process. I also thought it was a suitable opportunity to work on my aesthetic design skills because I had only considered functionality in my previous projects. Designing a high-tech product such as an MR headset, helped me accomplish these initial motives as I could focus on the aesthetics while also considering the functionality through its wearability and ergonomics. Additionally, this allowed me to study current technologies such as the metaverse and NFTs.

Although my project now follows a clear order of development, there were many adjustments and modifications I had to make along the way. The biggest among them was the context of my project. When I first proposed an improved virtual concert that takes place in local venues, spatial design was the favorable context. However, I thought that the medium which made this future possible was more important than the space itself. For this reason, I chose to design an MR headset instead of a venue. I wanted the viewer to see the product as a reflection of the proposal and imagine the other areas in which the product could be used.

 

Including research, ‘Lost and Found concert’ is divided into three parts. In the first part, I defined liveliness as ephemerality, two-way communication, and human connection. I thought these highlighted the lack of authenticity in the digital world, so I researched NFTs and Walter Benjamin’s ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.' Through this, I realized that authenticity is created by physical presence. So, I visited ‘Sumi Jo hologram mini concert’ because it was a virtual concert with a physical presence. The visit inspired me to propose a concert in which, people gather at a local venue and enjoy a hologram performance together. This proposal had the potential to fulfill my definition of liveliness as well as possess additional safety and sustainability benefits such as less travel emissions and safer crowd/pandemic control.

The second part was focused on realizing this proposal through an MR headset. They were my product of choice because MR technology allowed the manipulation of both physical and virtual worlds. I wanted to make my headset specifically cater to the needs of a concert, so I researched smart wearable devices. I found out that especially with wearable technology, the aesthetic aspect matters as the product also needs to serve the role of a fashion accessory. I tried to satisfy this role by modulating the headset so that it is customizable to match the preferences of the user. I also used cultural references from iconic Hip-Hop sunglasses to design the visor of my headset.

Overall, I made sure that each of my decisions in these two parts, as well as other parts, were supported by logical evidence from my research.

 

I was able to improve sketching, experimentation, and 3D modeling to a professional standard during this project.

First, I started to directly consider the user in my sketches. My sketches used to be only about the product itself, but I realized that including the user will give me a better idea of how my product will be used. This was especially helpful as my product was a wearable headset. I could work with the contours of the face to see how each design decision would affect the wearability.

Second, I experimented with full-scale samples to better understand the 3D shape and its ergonomics. This helped me identify problems that I wouldn’t have known if I hadn’t worn it firsthand. For example, on my second sample, I didn’t realize that the line going across the head would press on the user’s hair. However, after wearing it myself, I was able to consider hairstyles with volume and side parts. I fixed this by removing the upper supporting structure and placing it towards the back.

Third, I improved my 3D modeling skills by working with new tools to create complex shapes. My previous projects only regarded simple curves or linear shapes, so It was difficult to create a complex model such as my headset. However, I learned to use the ‘bevel’ tool effectively, which helped me smooth sharp edges to increase the overall wearability. The ‘lattice’ modifier was also helpful, as it allowed me to bend my flat model into its intended wearable shape.

In the future, I hope to develop my prototype-making skills and achieve a balance between computer-assisted design and making skills.

 

This project helped me realize that my preconception is an area I need to improve upon. My first stages of development displayed this most apparently. 

My final Idea sketch had two lines going across the face. I was drawn to this sketch because I enjoyed its unconventional looks, and thought that it could remain stable during the harsh movements of concerts. However, by selecting this design, I was consequently de-prioritizing my intentions to create a headset that wasn’t awkward for social situations. In retrospect, I kept finding a way to justify the line going across the face despite its uncomfortable properties. However, on my third sample, I saw my cheeks pressed against my cheekbones and felt a slight pain on my nose bridge. At this moment, I gave up my obsession with the unfunctional form and worked with the contours of the head to avoid blocking the face as much as possible.

Moving past this failure, I started the aesthetic design process. I think this part was quite successful as it helped me learn important decision-making skills. At first, it was difficult for me to start because I had never solely developed the aesthetics of my products before. However, I learned that I could use references from my moodboards and metaphors to deliver the core values of my project. This realization inspired me to use Newton’s cradle and fluid art as design references since both of them reflected my definition of liveliness. As a result, I was able to draw circular and linear elements from the former and a fluid curved shape from the latter. 

 

The progression of my project went according to plan for the first six weeks. However, major problems started to appear at a later stage. I overcame the issues through daily planning, ambition control, and workload distribution.

The first major problem I encountered was the lack of clarity in my flow of research. Fixing this was time-consuming, so I had to make up for lost time through daily planning. I allocated time in school for the making activities, such as sample creation and experiments because they required a larger space. As for my time spent at home and during weekends, I dedicated it towards writing, sketching, and 3D modeling on the computer. I was also able to think about my reorganized flow of research during this time.

This setback combined with my ambitions put my workload at full capacity. I had to make a list of priorities and minimize certain ambitions. For example, I originally planned to study the technological components used in my product and provide a blueprint of the motherboard. However, I realized that this was more engineering than design, so I replaced my original plans with a general map of where each component would be located.

Despite these adjustments, I still had to work faster. I cut down rendering times by using three computers at once. Two were dedicated to rendering so that I could work on a second model while the other was rendering. When both computers were rendering, I finished writing and lightweight editing on the third computer. This way, I didn’t have to wait for each task to be completed in order to advance to the next.

 

Evaluation and self-reflection were a vital part of establishing a clear order of development. I realized that the actual order isn’t always the most logical one, so critically evaluating whether the previous content of research flows into the next was an important practice I had to develop.

The major problem of my research was the inconsistent advocacy between virtual and real concerts. On some pages, I expressed my preference for real concerts while on others, I did the exact opposite. Reevaluating whether these shifts brought me towards ‘finding my lost concert’ was important in solving this problem. Specifically, I printed out every page of my sketchbook and organized why I supported one concert over the other. I realized that I wasn’t finding a middle ground in between real and virtual concerts, but improving virtual concerts through the use of ‘phygital’. This process helped remove awkward areas and reestablish a clear flow of research.

During my design development, I used a different method of reflection. It regarded active reflection, so there were clear criteria in which I evaluated my decisions. They included whether my headset fulfilled my definition of liveliness and whether it was suitable for both participants of a concert. I tested these by trying on a full-scale sample and visualizing its context through renderings. These methods helped me decide priorities and delete unnecessary elements.

However, In the future, I wish to develop my method of evaluating prototype making. I made the headset focusing on its wearability rather than its functionality, so It wasn’t detailed enough to deliver my original intentions. For this reason, I want to develop criteria to evaluate my prototypes.

 

The most thought-provoking feedback I received during critic discussion was that ‘compared to my thorough research, my outcomes tend to be simple’. I didn’t understand this at first, but my development process reflected what I was doing wrong. There was a disconnect between my design and research because I wasn’t effectively using the references that I found. Instead, I was simply choosing the type of product to design through my research. After realizing this, I actively explored ways to implement my research into the design such as aesthetic references and required features. I recorded these adjustments and realizations in my logbook, to inform the teachers about my new decisions.

This feedback also affected the way I communicated my project. I put a clear emphasis on the initial motives of ‘finding my lost virtual concert’ so that the research in between wouldn’t overwhelm others. This way, I could clarify the purpose of my outcome, as a tool to realize an alternate virtual concert and reclaim my lost concert. I further highlighted this method of communication in my presentation. I added small pictures of myself ‘looking for’ my lost concert to remind viewers that every decision was made to fulfill this goal. 

Most importantly, I made sure to address my initial goal by concluding my presentation with a ‘concert’. Essentially, it took the role of a demonstration footage, helping the viewers understand the concert experience. I thought this language of communication was especially important in the field of product design, as an indirect experience of firsthand usage. Considering the positive feedback of the concert at the end, I believe that both of its roles were accomplished.