In the weeks leading up to the exhibition, our project evolved through a series of increasingly specific questions rather than clear solutions.As the person responsible for the TouchDesigner system, I initially approached the task as a technical challenge: how to visualise breathing on a large screen. However, the development process revealed that the real difficulty was not technical execution, but conceptual clarity.
We developed three distinct versions of the system. Each version was presented and discussed with David, whose feedback consistently pushed the project beyond its current level rather than simply validating progress.
Version 1: A Clear but Superficial Idea
The first version translated breathing into a simple expanding and contracting form. It was visually legible and technically stable. However, during feedback, a critical issue emerged: The system looked like breathing, but did not feel like breathing. This distinction forced us to confront a common problem in digital media design — the difference between representation and experience.
Version 2: Adding Interaction, Increasing Complexity
In response, we introduced real-time input, allowing the system to respond directly to human breath. While this made the system more interactive, it also introduced instability:
- inconsistent sensor input
- visual noise
- lack of rhythm
During discussion, David shifted the focus again by asking: What is the audience supposed to understand or feel from this interaction?This question exposed a gap between system behaviour and audience interpretation.
Version 3: Designing for Perception
The final version emerged not from adding features, but from removing and refining them. We simplified the visual language and prioritised rhythm over responsiveness. Instead of directly mapping breath to movement, we shaped the output to feel more organic and continuous. This version was ultimately selected for the exhibition.
Reflection
What stands out in this process is not the progression of technology, but the role of critique. Each feedback session did not solve problems — it reframed them. Rather than asking:
“How do we make this work?” We began asking: “What is this actually doing?”
Insight
This experience highlights an important aspect of collaborative design: Good feedback does not confirm decisions. It destabilises them in productive ways. The final outcome was not the result of a single idea, but of sustained negotiation between intention, critique, and revision.
