Portal Considerations, Rationale, and Restrictions

The physical space for the experience was something I considered, researched, and tested over two months because it was a challenge to understand what the ‘portal’ should be. There were a number of considerations and restrictions — the two categories of epistemological importance that lead to appropriate ontological significance.

Considerations:

1. portal
2. individual, secluded space
3. sensory dampening
4. light absorbing
5. sound isolated
6. not standing [seated in whatever position is preferred]
7. portable
8. collapsable
9. indoor and fits within a standard room
10. holds, and isolates from view, the hardware
11. center location for person

Rationale for Considerations:

1. While there were and are many specific considerations regarding interpretation and implicit associations, the overarching, not strictly functional, determinate was that this physical space would serve as a portal between the macro, physical world and the quantum, virtual world.
2. This experience may be one that multiple people can have, but not in the same physical space-time. The super-imposition state is one that may occur on many levels, but distraction during such an experience is something I have decided to avoid.
3. Again, distraction is something I have determined is a factor that would lead to a very different experience. Removing physical intrusions on the virtual experience is critical for this work.
4. Light is the most intrusive element for this work. As with many experiments relying on macro witnessing of quantum electromagnetic forces, isolation from excess photon, in this case, energy is paramount.
5. Avoidance of distraction is part of the rationale for this, but also to help isolate the sound waves that are intentionally available and directed to the person experiencing the work.
6. While standing is not detrimental, the ability to stay for long periods [indefinitely if one were to choose to do so] of time if so desired, necessitated the option to sit, even curl into a fetal position.
7. The ability to have a personal/home VR shrine/temple is in keeping with the goals of my work. While one might construct an entirely new space or alter one’s lifestyle significantly to provide such an experience, I predict the majority of people who wish to have such an experience would prefer to do so within the confines of their existing space and lifestyle. Just as so many religious followers construct and utilize various physical structures at home for purposes tied to their beliefs, the mentality here is that wherever you are, wherever you travel, you could bring such bridges/portals/icons with you. For that to happen in this case, I restricted the weight and scale.
8. For travel, I restricted how it would be constructed in such a way as to make it possible to carry and transport all elements in a common format.
9. Ideally the portal would be able to fit into a standard room — which it does — AND be able to be self-sustaining as an outdoor structure — which it definitely does not. While I would love for both options, finances and my current resources dictated that I could meet only one of these goals for now.
10. While this is not absolutely necessary, both from the point of view of experiencing it in a non-familiar, contrived space and the ultimate goal of experiencing it in one’s own home/space, hardware can be distracting. If I were controlling the look of the hardware itself, this might not be true, but as it is now, I believe it is more cohesive to remove hardware from consideration of the work as much as possible.
11. Again, conservation of space for all of the above reasons meant that the space itself was small in comparison to a person. As such, in order to also make the space comfortable in a resting position, suggested a central location for the body.

Restrictions:

1. Budget: both because I wanted a portal that others could create as well and because my personal budget is limited. I designed it first, but the problem solving involved for most of the solutions needed for actualization revolved around budget constraints. I spent around $200 on materials. I had the tools already but nothing more expensive or complex than a drill was used. I prefabbed and prototyped this 3 times, but the costs for those are included in my material costs.
2. Materials: budget is a related factor, but also availability and my shop resources dictated that certain materials could not be used during fabrication. This definitely affected design including my desire to make it suitable for outdoor use in mixed terrain and climate. My restrictions included light weight wood, inexpensive latex fabric, and velcro as a means to meet the requirements of portable, sensory absorbing, and collapsable — as well as the aesthetic I desired.

Ideally this would be a modular piece composed of hardshell, inter-lockable 1×1 foot pieces. A person would be able to connect them in various arrangements as they desired to provide a space that would fit their needs. It would be weatherproof and the opening would be breathable, weatherproof fabric. My research suggests a geodesic component piece with various attachable connectors would work well. The option to cover the finished piece or to stick adhesive tiles of various materials to the individual components would allow for customization.