Final Project

Outline

Due: Thursday 26th September, 11:55pm
Mark weighting: 25%
Exhibition details: see below
Submission: submit your assignment according to the instructions below
Policies: see the policies page

Description

The end of the school year is approaching, and so is the EXTN1019 final project. As we’ve foreshadowed all along in this course, your final project deliverable is an interactive creative code artefact for an end-of-year creative code exhibition.

Your goal is to provide an engaging performance/user experience which communicates your interpretation of the theme: Radical Interdependencies.

Specification

Your final project submission has three parts:

an interactive/evolving/dynamic creative code artefact that is engaging for 3-5 minutes
a README.md file explaining how to interact with your work or how it evolves or dynamically transforms over time
in Interpretation.md, include a brief [400 words] explanation of your interpretation of the theme and how your creative code artefact expresses this. This should emulate the kind of “interpretation guide” you find beside artworks in a gallery. Include the artist name, the title of the work (does not have to be the same as the theme), year, theme, interpretation [400 words], and credits (if you incorporate additional material generated by others, including generative aspects)

Creative code artefact

Your creative code artefact needs to:

run smoothly in a web browser - preferably Firefox
be interactive or evolve or dynamically transform over time
produce visual and audio output
it is recommended that you build on (at least) one of the ideas you submitted for your portfolio

You should still be working with your interpretation of the theme: Radical Interdependencies, just like you have been for the portfolio. If you’re unsure about your ideas for whatever reason, then feel free to ask a question either in class or on Teams.

Submission process

You must submit all the necessary files (code, image/audio/video files) by committing and pushing them to GitLab by 11:55pm on Thursday 26 September. You must push your code to your fork of the final project repository. You must submit the link to your repository to Wattle under the “Final Project” assessment item.

Marking criteria

The marking criteria are connected to the course learning outcomes (LOs), and you will be assessed on your project’s

Interaction design (connected to LO #1 & #4)

Do your methods of interaction/evolution/dynamic transformation enhance the communication of your interpretation of the theme?

Artistic output (LO #2)

Does the visual aesthetic (animations, colour, composition, texture, shaders, objects) enhance the communication of your interpretation of the theme? AND/OR Does your choice of sonic output (rhythm, timbre, effects, pitch, dynamics) enhance the communication of your interpretation of the theme?

Implementation (LO #3)

Have you selected the most appropriate programming concept(s) to implement your ideas?
Does your code work as detailed in the README? Are there any obvious bugs/janky bits?

Year 12 Final Project Assessment Rubric

	A Grade (9-10)	B Grade (7-8)	C Grade (5-6)	D Grade (3-4)	E Grade (0-2)
D1 [25%] Interaction Design LO #1 and #2	considers interaction/evolution/dynamic transformation as a feedback loop between user input and visuals/sound. Uses this feedback to design an engaging experience for the user/audience (relates to D3 and D4)	explores several interactions/modes of evolution/dynamic transformation over time, includes critical reflection of design (selection of appropriate interaction/responsiveness)	explores several interactions/modes of evolution/forms of dynamic transformation over time designs, but no critical reflection of alignment with theme	minimal exploration of interaction and/or evolution/dynamic transformation over time (only explores one interaction type)	no exploration of interaction or responsiveness or evolution or dynamic transformation over time
D2 [25%] Artistic Output LO #2	clear evolution of visual outcomes with well justified decision making in relation and critical exploration of theme (below). (relates to D3 and D4)	clear evolution of visual outcomes with well justified decision making	satisfactory artistic output which includes several variations or stages of evolution	some visual output considered, but not much variation or evolution	very limited output, or no output
D3 [25%] Critical Exploration of Theme LO #1 and #4	interacting with the work makes the viewer think differently about the theme—wow factor	theme is explored through the artefact/experience, including references to prior art	theme is clearly presented, but is not deeply integrated into the overall artefact/experience	very superficial mention of the theme (e.g. theme is only represented by text on screen)	the theme is not represented in the artistic output or interaction design
D4 [25%] Technical Quality LO #1 and #3	no major bugs, significant evidence of work by the student including something right at the edge (or beyond) the techniques we covered in this course, good abstraction, deep understanding of coding structures and techniques	no major bugs, significant evidence of work by the student and engagement with techniques we covered in this course, coding techniques used effectively and efficiently	no major bugs, but lacks significant ambition on the technical side or, strong engagement with techniques through combining three (or fewer) code sources without significant changes, satisfactory use of coding structures	it sort of works, but it’s super janky or it works, but represents very limited changes to prior work, ad hoc use of coding structures and techniques	it doesn’t work at all or it is not the student’s work, coding techniques and structures used inappropriately

FAQ

“how do you add citations and bibliographies in Markdown”

This guide shows you how: https://arshovon.com/blog/cite-in-markdown/

Your Markdown should looks like this:

Raji, et al[^Raji_2021], discuss the dangers of Artificial Intelligence ..

---
**Bibliography**

[^Raji_2021]: Raji, Inioluwa Deborah, Emily M. Bender, Amandalynne Paullada, Emily Denton, and Alex Hanna. “AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmark.” arXiv:2111.15366 [Cs], November 26, 2021. http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.15366.

Jekyll will render this as follows:

Raji, et al¹, discuss the dangers of Artificial Intelligence ..

Bibliography

Raji, Inioluwa Deborah, Emily M. Bender, Amandalynne Paullada, Emily Denton, and Alex Hanna. “AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmark.” arXiv:2111.15366 [Cs], November 26, 2021. http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.15366. ↩