Full Text
VISUALIZING THE IN-BETWEEN OF DIGITAL AND PHYSICAL SPACE: A PRACTICE-BASED GLITCH SCULPTURE OF THE SELFIE
ABSTRACT
The selfie captures a moment when a human face exists simultaneously in physical and digital space, an everyday act that exposes how blurred the boundary between analog and digital experience has become. Yet few tangible, non-screen-based methods exist to make audiences reflect on this "in-between" state. This practice-based design research investigates how a physical sculpture, rather than an interactive or screen-mediated medium, can provoke critical reflection on the digital and analog boundary and the contested notion of "mixed reality." The design process combined 3D facial scanning, digital "glitch" manipulation, and 3D printing. Support structures generated by the printer were deliberately preserved as material traces of the digital-to-analog translation. A plaster-cast hand in a selfie gesture, connected to the glitched face by threads, places the viewer within the conceptual gap between the two states. The study documents iterative decision points, critique feedback, and observation during a public exhibition as a reflective methodology. Two findings emerged. First, the sculpture was aesthetically compelling and sustained viewer attention, yet the digital and analog concept did not reliably surface from form alone; viewers recognized the distortion and the selfie posture without necessarily inferring the in-between theme. Second, full conceptual comprehension depended on a short accompanying text, suggesting that tangible critical objects may require framing to complete their meaning. The work contributes a low-technology strategy for surfacing post-digital tensions, proposing sculpture and material glitch as tools for reflection alongside screen-based extended reality (XR).
1. INTRODUCTION
Modern life is spent constantly moving between analog and digital states, and at times within a fusion of the two. As digital technology has developed, terms such as "virtual reality," "augmented reality," and "mixed reality" have been introduced to describe immersive technologies. These terms raise a prior question: what is reality, and what distinguishes the analog from the digital? This project explores that question through sculpture, examining the state of being in-between digital and physical space and asking what "analog" and "reality" mean under the inevitable influence of digital technology.
The selfie is one such fused state. When a person takes a selfie, the human face appears in digital and analog space at the same time. In this project, the digital glitch, a computational error that normally exists only in the digital world, is applied to a 3D model of a face captured in a selfie gesture. The support structures generated by the 3D printer are retained rather than removed, standing for the glitch produced in transforming a digital face into an analog object. The resulting work is intended to provoke reflection on what extended reality (XR) terms mean today and on the distinctions between reality, the digital, and mixed reality.
This research is guided by two questions. First, can a static, non-interactive, non-screen-based sculpture provoke critical reflection on the boundary between digital and analog? Second, to what extent does such reflection arise from the object itself, as opposed to depending on an accompanying textual frame? The paper's central contribution follows from the second question: for a tangible critical object, attention and concept-level comprehension are distinct outcomes. The object can secure attention on its own, but conveying an abstract concept relies on framing text, which should therefore be treated as integral to the work rather than as supplementary labeling. Alongside this principle, the paper offers a documented, low-technology design strategy for surfacing post-digital tensions.
1.1 IMPETUS
The project began from a sense that small, everyday interactions with digital interfaces produce a dependence on digital space that feels, on reflection, unnatural. Escapism drives part of this: digital devices act as a "portal" onto another space, into which a person can temporarily withdraw from physical reality, and modern life repeatedly requires picking up that portal to act through a screen. The relationship between the human body and these two spaces became the central interest of the project.
1.2 SIGNIFICANCE
Digital technology is now an inseparable part of daily life, and the line between digital and analog space is increasingly difficult to locate. People often occupy a fusion of, or a position between, the two states. A growing body of scholarship questions what digital and analog space are (Paul, 2016). This project contributes to that conversation by asking, through a physical object, whether a new space exists between the digital and physical worlds, and by encouraging viewers to recognize both the benefits and costs of technology and to become aware of the virtual spaces entering the analog world.
2. RELATED WORK
The project sits at the intersection of several domains: digital technology, 3D printing, physical and analog space, sculpture, and contemporary or new media art (Figure 1). Human life under the influence of digital technology is no longer purely analog, which is why digital technology, physical space, and digital escapism are treated as core domains of interest.
Much recent artistic engagement with "mixed reality" and the digital-analog boundary is screen-based, interactive, or computationally mediated. This concentration leaves a gap: comparatively few works test whether a static, unpowered, non-interactive object can carry the same critical charge. The present study positions sculpture as this underexplored alternative and asks what such an object can and cannot do on its own. The framing draws on the notion of the "post-digital," in which digital and analog are no longer opposed but entangled in everyday material life (Cramer, 2015), and on broader questions about the nature of digital and analog space in contemporary art (Paul, 2016).
Contemporary art is the central domain informing the work, understood here as a means to question, critique, and comment. The project specifically occupies the field of new media art, defined as art created with new media technology, including 3D printing and cyborg art. While many artists have experimented with digital and interactive art in recent decades, this project deliberately tests whether a sculpture with no screens, power, or interaction can still move a viewer strongly enough to engage with the questions it raises. Sculpture was therefore chosen as the form. It is also an efficient way to argue for the fusion of digital and physical: the sculpture is a physical object, yet its production is entirely digital. The author 3D-scanned their own head, imported the model into modeling software, manipulated it to produce a "glitched" appearance, printed it using 3D printing, and exposed it to a phone in selfie mode.
Several precedents shaped the approach and, together, established the standard the project set for itself: that a single strong, direct object can carry a critical idea efficiently.
Allan Wexler, in "How to Build a Digital Brick Wall" (2009), "Table for the Typical House" (2010), and "Interchange" (2008) (Figures 2 to 4), explores the relationship between handcraft and "computercraft," equating the labor of drawing a brick wall with that of laying one. His sculptures are simple, elegant, self-explanatory, and critical (Simone et al., 2017), and they motivated the decision to attempt contemporary art in a single strong piece rather than a set of small objects.
Nam June Paik's "Magnet TV" (1965) (Figure 5), encountered in the exhibition "Programmed: Rules, Codes, and Choreographies in Art, 1965–2018" (Whitney Museum of American Art, n.d.), uses a magnet to distort a television signal into an abstract image, implying the manipulable power of broadcast. The work models how a single strong, direct gesture can carry a critical idea.
Andrea Wolf's "Little Memories" (2015) (Figure 6) combines miniatures and projections so that images become a window in which present and past coexist. The combination of digital image and physical miniature suggested a viable form for showing the fusion of digital and analog.
Ferruccio Laviani's "D/Visions" and "Good Vibrations" (2017) (Figures 7 and 8) produce furniture that balances classic and contemporary and generates a "digitalized" feeling, giving the sense of multiple parallel spaces appearing at once (Studio Laviani, 2017; MOCO Vote, n.d.). This directly informed the use of the glitch as a form.
Sophie Kahn, in "Machines for Suffering I" (2018) and "Bust of a Woman II" (2016) (Figures 9 and 10), uses a high-end 3D laser scanner and 3D printing to produce glitched, fragmented figures. Her method of exploiting the scanner's low accuracy to generate fragmentation was influential. Because the scanner available to the author was limited, the model was instead manipulated manually and the printer's support structures were used as glitches.
David Altmejd, in "Struck" (2017) and "To the Other" (2015) (Figures 11 and 12), makes highly detailed sculptures that blur the boundaries between interior and exterior, surface and structure, representation and abstraction. This paralleled the project's aim of blurring the physical and digital boundary, and his elegant use of aluminum rods and simple bases informed the display structure.
These precedents are useful in different ways. From Wexler and Paik comes the economy of a single, self-explanatory critical gesture. Kahn and Altmejd show how a fragmented, glitched figure can blur representational boundaries in physical material, and Wolf and Laviani show how digital and physical registers can be held together in one object. What none of them do is take the boundary between digital and analog as the subject itself; in most cases it emerges as a side effect of technique, and the work is carried by a screen, a projection, or an interaction. This project draws on all three lessons at once but puts them in a single static, unpowered object whose actual question is that boundary. That is what sets it apart: not a new technique, but the deliberate test of whether a non-screen, non-interactive object can provoke this reflection on its own.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN
This is practice-based, reflective design research. Rather than a controlled study with formal instruments, it produces knowledge through the act of making a single critical object and reflecting systematically on that process and its reception. The evidence base comprises three sources: iterative design decisions and their rationale; critique feedback received over the course of the project, including at interim and final reviews; and observation of viewer response during a public exhibition. Observations were recorded informally rather than through a structured instrument, and were interpreted thematically against the two research questions, grouping recurring patterns of response into the findings reported below. These sources are used to interpret how well the object communicates its concept and what conditions that communication depends on.
3.2 CONCEPT AND SCOPE
The work is a single sculpture that explores, through form, a state of being between the digital and analog worlds, a state that does not exist in reality. A digital glitch is applied to a 3D model of a face in a selfie gesture so that the resulting object raises the question of what analog form becomes under the influence of digital technology. The scope is deliberately narrow: one piece, one question, inviting the audience to think critically about this in-between space and the impact of technology on physical reality rather than attempting a broad survey of the theme.
3.3 APPROACH TO EXPERIENCE DESIGN
As a sculpture, the work is issue-raising and viewer-based. It is non-interactive and can be viewed from multiple angles. The 3D-printed face is highly detailed in its glitches, and from the front the viewer can trace a connection from the face toward the hand, since the glitches grow in that direction. The form is deliberately abstract, provoking interest and leaving room for imagination. The intended experience is that the viewer reads a short description, begins to imagine the space between the digital and physical worlds, and in doing so arrives at the intention behind the work.
The glitch is not an accidental computational error in the strict sense, but the author chose a method that keeps it close to accident. An extrude function in Maya frequently produces inaccurate, "ruined" geometry when vertices are extruded, and this behavior was used as a tool to generate the glitches. The support structures produced by the 3D printer were also retained from the final print. Generated automatically in regular patterns by the printer, they stand for the glitch introduced when a digital file is transformed into an analog object (Figures 13 to 15).
3.4 FABRICATION AND ASSEMBLY
The piece consists of two parts, a glitched face and a hand, each mounted on an aluminum rod set into a cement base (Figures 16 to 18).
The face is a 3D scan of the author's own face, posed as if taking a selfie and searching for the best angle. The scan was glitched in Maya and Blender and printed on a Form 2 3D printer to obtain the best print quality achievable within budget and time constraints. The finished print contained some broken areas caused during printing, which were treated as further glitches, along with the retained support structures.
The hand is a plaster cast of the author's own hand in the gesture of holding a phone. The gesture proved difficult to cast, often producing incomplete casts or broken fingers. The final cast was nearly complete, with one broken finger reattached. A deliberate contrast exists between the two elements. The hand is highly detailed, showing fingerprints, palm prints, and wrinkles, and represents unmediated physical reality. The face is computer-modified and digitized, made evident by the polygons and triangles across its surface, and represents existence in the digital space of the phone held by the hand (Figure 19). After installation, threads were added to connect points on the face and hand, directing the viewer's attention to the space between them and prompting reflection on the connection (Figure 20).
3.5 ITERATIVE DECISION POINTS
The form changed substantially through iteration and critique.
The first idea used an iPad and an iPhone, both in selfie mode and facing each other, with a physical selfie photo on the iPad, creating a loop between the two devices to represent the constant daily movement between states. Critique revealed unresolved questions, such as whose face it was and why anyone would photograph the two devices against each other. Following further discussion and research into precedents, the author decided to use their own head, manipulate it digitally, and print it. The loop was no longer necessary because the in-between state was already embodied in this version.
The author then considered replacing the iPhone with a mirror or an iPad. Feedback noted that a mirror implies self and identity, which were not the intended themes, and that the iPad is less common than the phone for taking selfies. The iPhone was retained despite the iPad being more convenient for installation.
The intended form placed a hand holding an iPhone in selfie mode toward the face. Discussion raised practical concerns, such as the risk of theft in an exhibition. Testing showed that the height and gesture of the hand alone were sufficient for viewers to read the posture, while remaining less literal and leaving room for imagination.
3.6 CRITIQUE AND ITS IMPACT
A main piece of feedback from an interim review was to invest more effort in the glitching process, for example by generating the glitch according to defined rules. The author considered this feasible but did not regard the underlying system of the glitch as the key aspect of the project. The concept is to explore the state of being between digital and analog space, and the glitch is the chosen form for showing that state; the code behind it is a tool for producing the visual effect rather than the focus of the work. At the same time, the author agreed that the 3D model should be visually compelling so that viewers would spend time with the piece and engage with its concept.
A second point of feedback identified the space between the face and the hand as especially interesting and worth further exploration. The author agreed and later experimented with connecting points of the face and hand using fishing thread, encouraging viewers to consider what occurs in the in-between space.
4. FINDINGS
4.1 CONCEPT LEGIBILITY FROM FORM ALONE
Observation during the public exhibition indicated that the concept was only partially self-evident in the form. Viewers reliably recognized that something had happened to the face, questioned why it was distorted, and read the selfie posture from the gesture of the hand. However, the specific idea that the work depicts a state between digital and analog did not consistently surface from the object alone; a number of viewers were unsure what the piece was about before encountering additional information.
4.2 AESTHETIC PULL AND SUSTAINED ATTENTION
Despite the partial legibility of the concept, the sculpture drew and held attention. Viewers, including fellow practitioners, responded to the piece as visually compelling and engaging, spending time observing its detail from multiple angles. The static, non-interactive, and unpowered nature of the work did not diminish this attention.
4.3 DEPENDENCE ON A TEXTUAL FRAME
Full conceptual comprehension appeared to depend on the short accompanying statement placed beside the work. Viewers who read the statement were observed to arrive at the intended reading, connecting the glitched face, the detailed hand, and the threaded space between them to the digital-analog theme, while those who did not read it tended to stop at curiosity about the distortion.
4.4 COMPLETION AGAINST INTENT
Most of the intended work was completed. The base was the element that fell short of the original plan. Two cement boxes were cast as bases instead of the intended single wooden box; the cement is heavier and less portable, which could limit exhibition in more distant venues. The face was completed to an acceptable degree, though with more time and a better 3D scanner the non-glitched areas could be more detailed, making the facial expression, and therefore the concept, easier to read.
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 INTERPRETING THE FINDINGS
The findings answer the two research questions directly. A static, non-interactive, non-screen-based sculpture can provoke reflection: it drew and held viewers' attention and prompted them to ask what had happened to the face and why. But reflection at the level of the specific concept was not self-sufficient in the object; it depended on an accompanying text.
This gap between what the object achieved on its own and what it needed the text for is the paper's central contribution. Attention and comprehension turned out to be two different things: the object could earn attention unaided, but it could not carry the in-between concept without the text beside it. If that is true, the text is not a caption added at the end but a working part of the piece, and it should be made with the same care. The same split is likely to appear whenever a non-interactive object tries to convey an abstract, post-digital idea, which is what makes the point useful beyond this one sculpture.
This tempers the assumption that a strong enough object will speak entirely for itself. The abstraction that made the piece intriguing was the same quality that left its meaning open, and the text was what closed that gap. Sculpture and material glitch remain a viable, low-technology way to surface post-digital tensions alongside screen-based extended reality, but only when the framing is built with as much care as the object.
5.2 REFLECTIVE PROTOTYPING
Several prototyped directions did not succeed and were informative in their failure. In an effort to add material and texture to the 3D-printed face, the author tested iron dust with a magnet, iron nails, plastic foam, and various spray and acrylic paints. Adding material on top of the plastic print did not produce a unified effect and risked misleading the audience, regardless of the material used. Although none of these were used in the final piece, the process clarified when to release an idea and concentrate on finding the strongest form rather than persisting with an approach that seems interesting but does not work.
5.3 A DECISION ON THE MEANING OF THE GLITCH
During a final review, one suggestion was that the glitch should carry additional meaning, for example by being generated from the author's own geodata or from data critiquing digital-product addiction. The author decided not to pursue this. The current form is understood as a critique of digital space precisely because the glitches were random results in Maya, commonly described as "accidents" that occur when users attempt something else on a model. Keeping the glitch close to accident preserves its status as a native digital artifact rather than a designed message.
5.4 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK
The study's evidence is observational and drawn from a single exhibition, without formal instruments or a structured participant sample; its findings should be read as reflective rather than statistically generalizable. Future work would strengthen the base structure for stability and safety, refine the glitched face for stronger visual effect and greater detail, and test the role of the textual frame more deliberately, for example by comparing viewer response with and without the accompanying statement. Further exhibition in gallery and conference contexts would extend the work's reach and provide a broader basis for observation.
6. CONCLUSION
This practice-based research proposes sculpture and material glitch as a tangible, low-technology strategy for surfacing post-digital tensions, offered alongside screen-based extended reality as a means of provoking reflection on the boundary between digital and physical space. The selfie, restaged as a glitched, 3D-printed face paired with a detailed cast hand and connected by threads, made that boundary observable in physical form. Two findings stand out. First, the object was aesthetically compelling and sustained viewer attention, yet the specific digital-analog concept did not reliably surface from form alone. Second, full conceptual comprehension depended on a short accompanying text. Together these suggest that tangible critical objects can reliably provoke curiosity and hold attention on their own, but may require a brief textual frame to complete their meaning. For designers and artists working on abstract, post-digital themes through non-interactive objects, the practical recommendation is to treat framing text not as a fallback but as an integral part of the work.
ABSTRACT
The selfie captures a moment when a human face exists simultaneously in physical and digital space, an everyday act that exposes how blurred the boundary between analog and digital experience has become. Yet few tangible, non-screen-based methods exist to make audiences reflect on this "in-between" state. This practice-based design research investigates how a physical sculpture, rather than an interactive or screen-mediated medium, can provoke critical reflection on the digital and analog boundary and the contested notion of "mixed reality." The design process combined 3D facial scanning, digital "glitch" manipulation, and 3D printing. Support structures generated by the printer were deliberately preserved as material traces of the digital-to-analog translation. A plaster-cast hand in a selfie gesture, connected to the glitched face by threads, places the viewer within the conceptual gap between the two states. The study documents iterative decision points, critique feedback, and observation during a public exhibition as a reflective methodology. Two findings emerged. First, the sculpture was aesthetically compelling and sustained viewer attention, yet the digital and analog concept did not reliably surface from form alone; viewers recognized the distortion and the selfie posture without necessarily inferring the in-between theme. Second, full conceptual comprehension depended on a short accompanying text, suggesting that tangible critical objects may require framing to complete their meaning. The work contributes a low-technology strategy for surfacing post-digital tensions, proposing sculpture and material glitch as tools for reflection alongside screen-based extended reality (XR).
1. INTRODUCTION
Modern life is spent constantly moving between analog and digital states, and at times within a fusion of the two. As digital technology has developed, terms such as "virtual reality," "augmented reality," and "mixed reality" have been introduced to describe immersive technologies. These terms raise a prior question: what is reality, and what distinguishes the analog from the digital? This project explores that question through sculpture, examining the state of being in-between digital and physical space and asking what "analog" and "reality" mean under the inevitable influence of digital technology.
The selfie is one such fused state. When a person takes a selfie, the human face appears in digital and analog space at the same time. In this project, the digital glitch, a computational error that normally exists only in the digital world, is applied to a 3D model of a face captured in a selfie gesture. The support structures generated by the 3D printer are retained rather than removed, standing for the glitch produced in transforming a digital face into an analog object. The resulting work is intended to provoke reflection on what extended reality (XR) terms mean today and on the distinctions between reality, the digital, and mixed reality.
This research is guided by two questions. First, can a static, non-interactive, non-screen-based sculpture provoke critical reflection on the boundary between digital and analog? Second, to what extent does such reflection arise from the object itself, as opposed to depending on an accompanying textual frame? The paper's central contribution follows from the second question: for a tangible critical object, attention and concept-level comprehension are distinct outcomes. The object can secure attention on its own, but conveying an abstract concept relies on framing text, which should therefore be treated as integral to the work rather than as supplementary labeling. Alongside this principle, the paper offers a documented, low-technology design strategy for surfacing post-digital tensions.
1.1 IMPETUS
The project began from a sense that small, everyday interactions with digital interfaces produce a dependence on digital space that feels, on reflection, unnatural. Escapism drives part of this: digital devices act as a "portal" onto another space, into which a person can temporarily withdraw from physical reality, and modern life repeatedly requires picking up that portal to act through a screen. The relationship between the human body and these two spaces became the central interest of the project.
1.2 SIGNIFICANCE
Digital technology is now an inseparable part of daily life, and the line between digital and analog space is increasingly difficult to locate. People often occupy a fusion of, or a position between, the two states. A growing body of scholarship questions what digital and analog space are (Paul, 2016). This project contributes to that conversation by asking, through a physical object, whether a new space exists between the digital and physical worlds, and by encouraging viewers to recognize both the benefits and costs of technology and to become aware of the virtual spaces entering the analog world.
2. RELATED WORK
The project sits at the intersection of several domains: digital technology, 3D printing, physical and analog space, sculpture, and contemporary or new media art (Figure 1). Human life under the influence of digital technology is no longer purely analog, which is why digital technology, physical space, and digital escapism are treated as core domains of interest.
Much recent artistic engagement with "mixed reality" and the digital-analog boundary is screen-based, interactive, or computationally mediated. This concentration leaves a gap: comparatively few works test whether a static, unpowered, non-interactive object can carry the same critical charge. The present study positions sculpture as this underexplored alternative and asks what such an object can and cannot do on its own. The framing draws on the notion of the "post-digital," in which digital and analog are no longer opposed but entangled in everyday material life (Cramer, 2015), and on broader questions about the nature of digital and analog space in contemporary art (Paul, 2016).
Contemporary art is the central domain informing the work, understood here as a means to question, critique, and comment. The project specifically occupies the field of new media art, defined as art created with new media technology, including 3D printing and cyborg art. While many artists have experimented with digital and interactive art in recent decades, this project deliberately tests whether a sculpture with no screens, power, or interaction can still move a viewer strongly enough to engage with the questions it raises. Sculpture was therefore chosen as the form. It is also an efficient way to argue for the fusion of digital and physical: the sculpture is a physical object, yet its production is entirely digital. The author 3D-scanned their own head, imported the model into modeling software, manipulated it to produce a "glitched" appearance, printed it using 3D printing, and exposed it to a phone in selfie mode.
Several precedents shaped the approach and, together, established the standard the project set for itself: that a single strong, direct object can carry a critical idea efficiently.
Allan Wexler, in "How to Build a Digital Brick Wall" (2009), "Table for the Typical House" (2010), and "Interchange" (2008) (Figures 2 to 4), explores the relationship between handcraft and "computercraft," equating the labor of drawing a brick wall with that of laying one. His sculptures are simple, elegant, self-explanatory, and critical (Simone et al., 2017), and they motivated the decision to attempt contemporary art in a single strong piece rather than a set of small objects.
Nam June Paik's "Magnet TV" (1965) (Figure 5), encountered in the exhibition "Programmed: Rules, Codes, and Choreographies in Art, 1965–2018" (Whitney Museum of American Art, n.d.), uses a magnet to distort a television signal into an abstract image, implying the manipulable power of broadcast. The work models how a single strong, direct gesture can carry a critical idea.
Andrea Wolf's "Little Memories" (2015) (Figure 6) combines miniatures and projections so that images become a window in which present and past coexist. The combination of digital image and physical miniature suggested a viable form for showing the fusion of digital and analog.
Ferruccio Laviani's "D/Visions" and "Good Vibrations" (2017) (Figures 7 and 8) produce furniture that balances classic and contemporary and generates a "digitalized" feeling, giving the sense of multiple parallel spaces appearing at once (Studio Laviani, 2017; MOCO Vote, n.d.). This directly informed the use of the glitch as a form.
Sophie Kahn, in "Machines for Suffering I" (2018) and "Bust of a Woman II" (2016) (Figures 9 and 10), uses a high-end 3D laser scanner and 3D printing to produce glitched, fragmented figures. Her method of exploiting the scanner's low accuracy to generate fragmentation was influential. Because the scanner available to the author was limited, the model was instead manipulated manually and the printer's support structures were used as glitches.
David Altmejd, in "Struck" (2017) and "To the Other" (2015) (Figures 11 and 12), makes highly detailed sculptures that blur the boundaries between interior and exterior, surface and structure, representation and abstraction. This paralleled the project's aim of blurring the physical and digital boundary, and his elegant use of aluminum rods and simple bases informed the display structure.
These precedents are useful in different ways. From Wexler and Paik comes the economy of a single, self-explanatory critical gesture. Kahn and Altmejd show how a fragmented, glitched figure can blur representational boundaries in physical material, and Wolf and Laviani show how digital and physical registers can be held together in one object. What none of them do is take the boundary between digital and analog as the subject itself; in most cases it emerges as a side effect of technique, and the work is carried by a screen, a projection, or an interaction. This project draws on all three lessons at once but puts them in a single static, unpowered object whose actual question is that boundary. That is what sets it apart: not a new technique, but the deliberate test of whether a non-screen, non-interactive object can provoke this reflection on its own.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN
This is practice-based, reflective design research. Rather than a controlled study with formal instruments, it produces knowledge through the act of making a single critical object and reflecting systematically on that process and its reception. The evidence base comprises three sources: iterative design decisions and their rationale; critique feedback received over the course of the project, including at interim and final reviews; and observation of viewer response during a public exhibition. Observations were recorded informally rather than through a structured instrument, and were interpreted thematically against the two research questions, grouping recurring patterns of response into the findings reported below. These sources are used to interpret how well the object communicates its concept and what conditions that communication depends on.
3.2 CONCEPT AND SCOPE
The work is a single sculpture that explores, through form, a state of being between the digital and analog worlds, a state that does not exist in reality. A digital glitch is applied to a 3D model of a face in a selfie gesture so that the resulting object raises the question of what analog form becomes under the influence of digital technology. The scope is deliberately narrow: one piece, one question, inviting the audience to think critically about this in-between space and the impact of technology on physical reality rather than attempting a broad survey of the theme.
3.3 APPROACH TO EXPERIENCE DESIGN
As a sculpture, the work is issue-raising and viewer-based. It is non-interactive and can be viewed from multiple angles. The 3D-printed face is highly detailed in its glitches, and from the front the viewer can trace a connection from the face toward the hand, since the glitches grow in that direction. The form is deliberately abstract, provoking interest and leaving room for imagination. The intended experience is that the viewer reads a short description, begins to imagine the space between the digital and physical worlds, and in doing so arrives at the intention behind the work.
The glitch is not an accidental computational error in the strict sense, but the author chose a method that keeps it close to accident. An extrude function in Maya frequently produces inaccurate, "ruined" geometry when vertices are extruded, and this behavior was used as a tool to generate the glitches. The support structures produced by the 3D printer were also retained from the final print. Generated automatically in regular patterns by the printer, they stand for the glitch introduced when a digital file is transformed into an analog object (Figures 13 to 15).
3.4 FABRICATION AND ASSEMBLY
The piece consists of two parts, a glitched face and a hand, each mounted on an aluminum rod set into a cement base (Figures 16 to 18).
The face is a 3D scan of the author's own face, posed as if taking a selfie and searching for the best angle. The scan was glitched in Maya and Blender and printed on a Form 2 3D printer to obtain the best print quality achievable within budget and time constraints. The finished print contained some broken areas caused during printing, which were treated as further glitches, along with the retained support structures.
The hand is a plaster cast of the author's own hand in the gesture of holding a phone. The gesture proved difficult to cast, often producing incomplete casts or broken fingers. The final cast was nearly complete, with one broken finger reattached. A deliberate contrast exists between the two elements. The hand is highly detailed, showing fingerprints, palm prints, and wrinkles, and represents unmediated physical reality. The face is computer-modified and digitized, made evident by the polygons and triangles across its surface, and represents existence in the digital space of the phone held by the hand (Figure 19). After installation, threads were added to connect points on the face and hand, directing the viewer's attention to the space between them and prompting reflection on the connection (Figure 20).
3.5 ITERATIVE DECISION POINTS
The form changed substantially through iteration and critique.
The first idea used an iPad and an iPhone, both in selfie mode and facing each other, with a physical selfie photo on the iPad, creating a loop between the two devices to represent the constant daily movement between states. Critique revealed unresolved questions, such as whose face it was and why anyone would photograph the two devices against each other. Following further discussion and research into precedents, the author decided to use their own head, manipulate it digitally, and print it. The loop was no longer necessary because the in-between state was already embodied in this version.
The author then considered replacing the iPhone with a mirror or an iPad. Feedback noted that a mirror implies self and identity, which were not the intended themes, and that the iPad is less common than the phone for taking selfies. The iPhone was retained despite the iPad being more convenient for installation.
The intended form placed a hand holding an iPhone in selfie mode toward the face. Discussion raised practical concerns, such as the risk of theft in an exhibition. Testing showed that the height and gesture of the hand alone were sufficient for viewers to read the posture, while remaining less literal and leaving room for imagination.
3.6 CRITIQUE AND ITS IMPACT
A main piece of feedback from an interim review was to invest more effort in the glitching process, for example by generating the glitch according to defined rules. The author considered this feasible but did not regard the underlying system of the glitch as the key aspect of the project. The concept is to explore the state of being between digital and analog space, and the glitch is the chosen form for showing that state; the code behind it is a tool for producing the visual effect rather than the focus of the work. At the same time, the author agreed that the 3D model should be visually compelling so that viewers would spend time with the piece and engage with its concept.
A second point of feedback identified the space between the face and the hand as especially interesting and worth further exploration. The author agreed and later experimented with connecting points of the face and hand using fishing thread, encouraging viewers to consider what occurs in the in-between space.
4. FINDINGS
4.1 CONCEPT LEGIBILITY FROM FORM ALONE
Observation during the public exhibition indicated that the concept was only partially self-evident in the form. Viewers reliably recognized that something had happened to the face, questioned why it was distorted, and read the selfie posture from the gesture of the hand. However, the specific idea that the work depicts a state between digital and analog did not consistently surface from the object alone; a number of viewers were unsure what the piece was about before encountering additional information.
4.2 AESTHETIC PULL AND SUSTAINED ATTENTION
Despite the partial legibility of the concept, the sculpture drew and held attention. Viewers, including fellow practitioners, responded to the piece as visually compelling and engaging, spending time observing its detail from multiple angles. The static, non-interactive, and unpowered nature of the work did not diminish this attention.
4.3 DEPENDENCE ON A TEXTUAL FRAME
Full conceptual comprehension appeared to depend on the short accompanying statement placed beside the work. Viewers who read the statement were observed to arrive at the intended reading, connecting the glitched face, the detailed hand, and the threaded space between them to the digital-analog theme, while those who did not read it tended to stop at curiosity about the distortion.
4.4 COMPLETION AGAINST INTENT
Most of the intended work was completed. The base was the element that fell short of the original plan. Two cement boxes were cast as bases instead of the intended single wooden box; the cement is heavier and less portable, which could limit exhibition in more distant venues. The face was completed to an acceptable degree, though with more time and a better 3D scanner the non-glitched areas could be more detailed, making the facial expression, and therefore the concept, easier to read.
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 INTERPRETING THE FINDINGS
The findings answer the two research questions directly. A static, non-interactive, non-screen-based sculpture can provoke reflection: it drew and held viewers' attention and prompted them to ask what had happened to the face and why. But reflection at the level of the specific concept was not self-sufficient in the object; it depended on an accompanying text.
This gap between what the object achieved on its own and what it needed the text for is the paper's central contribution. Attention and comprehension turned out to be two different things: the object could earn attention unaided, but it could not carry the in-between concept without the text beside it. If that is true, the text is not a caption added at the end but a working part of the piece, and it should be made with the same care. The same split is likely to appear whenever a non-interactive object tries to convey an abstract, post-digital idea, which is what makes the point useful beyond this one sculpture.
This tempers the assumption that a strong enough object will speak entirely for itself. The abstraction that made the piece intriguing was the same quality that left its meaning open, and the text was what closed that gap. Sculpture and material glitch remain a viable, low-technology way to surface post-digital tensions alongside screen-based extended reality, but only when the framing is built with as much care as the object.
5.2 REFLECTIVE PROTOTYPING
Several prototyped directions did not succeed and were informative in their failure. In an effort to add material and texture to the 3D-printed face, the author tested iron dust with a magnet, iron nails, plastic foam, and various spray and acrylic paints. Adding material on top of the plastic print did not produce a unified effect and risked misleading the audience, regardless of the material used. Although none of these were used in the final piece, the process clarified when to release an idea and concentrate on finding the strongest form rather than persisting with an approach that seems interesting but does not work.
5.3 A DECISION ON THE MEANING OF THE GLITCH
During a final review, one suggestion was that the glitch should carry additional meaning, for example by being generated from the author's own geodata or from data critiquing digital-product addiction. The author decided not to pursue this. The current form is understood as a critique of digital space precisely because the glitches were random results in Maya, commonly described as "accidents" that occur when users attempt something else on a model. Keeping the glitch close to accident preserves its status as a native digital artifact rather than a designed message.
5.4 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK
The study's evidence is observational and drawn from a single exhibition, without formal instruments or a structured participant sample; its findings should be read as reflective rather than statistically generalizable. Future work would strengthen the base structure for stability and safety, refine the glitched face for stronger visual effect and greater detail, and test the role of the textual frame more deliberately, for example by comparing viewer response with and without the accompanying statement. Further exhibition in gallery and conference contexts would extend the work's reach and provide a broader basis for observation.
6. CONCLUSION
This practice-based research proposes sculpture and material glitch as a tangible, low-technology strategy for surfacing post-digital tensions, offered alongside screen-based extended reality as a means of provoking reflection on the boundary between digital and physical space. The selfie, restaged as a glitched, 3D-printed face paired with a detailed cast hand and connected by threads, made that boundary observable in physical form. Two findings stand out. First, the object was aesthetically compelling and sustained viewer attention, yet the specific digital-analog concept did not reliably surface from form alone. Second, full conceptual comprehension depended on a short accompanying text. Together these suggest that tangible critical objects can reliably provoke curiosity and hold attention on their own, but may require a brief textual frame to complete their meaning. For designers and artists working on abstract, post-digital themes through non-interactive objects, the practical recommendation is to treat framing text not as a fallback but as an integral part of the work.