Project Springboard: a Collective Art Project on the University of Florida Campus
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Project Springboard: A Collective Art Project on the University of Florida Campus
Introduction, Purpose, and Research Question
Project Springboard is a collective art project generously funded by the Bob Graham Center’s Healthy 3C Grant. This project was placed in a very public plaza and people came up to it over the course of 3 weeks to stretch over 10,000 rubber bands across the thousands of screws on the 6 feet by 8 feet wooden canvas built by Tyler Busbee. The interactions the participants have with this piece, relative to the interactions of the many people they know or have yet to meet, are microcosms of what actually takes place in the real world.
Kline and Pinch establish “users as agents of technological change” because they want us to understand that the relationship of technology to society is one where social norms drive and shape the social inputs of technology (Kline 764). They want to shift the focus from the “producers” to the “users” of technology. Snapchat is now a social norm and its users use it to share not only their lives with each other but establish that every moment needs to be shared anywhere and any-when. Kline and Pinch also speak about “interpretive flexibility” and how we can alter the form of the technology to adjust its function to meet our needs. Users have adapted the app to meet their needs over the course of its release and now we want to study how users interpret the recreation of the Mona Lisa with the bare materials we provide.
If we strip everything down to the bare nuts and bolts and allow people to build something together, what kind of conversation and interactions will they have? Langdon says that technologies are “ways of building order in our world” and “the issues that divide or unite people in society are settled not only in the institutions and practices of politics proper, but also, and less obviously, in tangible arrangements of steel and concrete, wires and transistors, nuts and bolts.” This leads me to believe that art is the lens to help us understand the order we build (Winner 8). Langdon Winner emphasizes the care we must place in the design and arrangement of a device or system because “it could provide a convenient means of establishing patterns of power and authority in a given setting” due to its “range of flexibility in the dimensions of their material form” (Winner 134). He wants us to evaluate our small biases and preferences that are the building blocks to our own politics and how these will mold or interact with the politics of the other social actors we invite to participate as well as the politics incorporated into the piece itself which comes to have its own agency. Winner emphasizes the need to examine and evaluate how inflexible some of our employed technologies are because he insinuates that by choosing them, we choose that particular political life. Is the form of the collective art project easy to manipulate and play around with? Is it inviting? Who does it invite and whom do those people invite? How the small nuts and bolts stack up matter so we must be aware of what our physical world encourages.
What we create can be altered by us in “interpretive flexibility” but it can also alter us in return through its politics. Our small moments, actions, thoughts, and habits compound to become incredibly significant over the decades in front and behind us. No single person can accomplish what we can collectively create together. Stretching one rubber band, placing one vote, speaking up once, standing behind one cause, saving one tree, being there for one person, going out of your way one time simply, but profoundly matters. The project is founded upon 3 pillars: civic engagement, art, and technology in the hopes of exploring a larger question. Can we facilitate engagement through art? If so, what kind of engagement can we promote exactly?
Methods The canvas was assembled from many sheets of 4 feet by 8 feet plywood and pieces of 2”x4” wood. The final dimensions were 6 feet by 8 feet. Tyler Busbee drilled 1,728 screws into the canvas at intervals of 2 inches. Over 10,000 rubber bands were ordered and used by participants in the recreation of the Mona Lisa. The College of the Arts collaborated with the Museum of Natural History, Harn Museum, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Center for the Humanities and the Public Sphere, Samuel Proctor Oral History Program, and the Performing Arts at the University of Florida to organize the Pop-Up Culture Event in celebration of the National Arts & Humanities Month on October 15, 2015 when the piece also made its debut as the centerpiece of the event. The piece remained in the Plaza of the Americas for 3 additional weeks before being removed by our team. Observations were taken from the Pop-Up Culture Event as well as over the duration of the project’s stay in the plaza through in-person and online interactions. Snapchat was employed in this study as a means to measure online student engagement with Facebook activity as a complement. In-person observations were taken throughout the 3-week duration as team members supervised and helped maintain the project.
Results
In-Person Engagement
Over 10,000 rubber bands were stretched across the board. Ten individuals were involved in the conceptual grant-writing phase and over 173 people signed in on the cardboard sheets left alongside the wooden board to indicate their personal involvement. Engagement with our project was most apparent on the day of the Pop-Up Culture event. The Mona Lisa piece was situated in the middle of the plaza amidst all of the activity booths. Because of its size and the people already crowding around it, it drew more curious onlookers from the other tables. As these new individuals watched the simplistic way others interacted with the piece by stretching a rubber band across multiple screws, they inquired whether they could participate - if they were even allowed. The new participants turned to those they watched working with the piece and a hierarchy of experience and skill developed where they asked those people how to do it and where they could place the rubber band.
Figure 1 shows the networks of association that were formed around and through the recreation of the Mona Lisa during the Pop-Up Culture event and over the span of 3 weeks. The arrows are double sided in order to clearly communicate the reciprocity of the interactions. Single-headed arrows indicate a source of extraction where exchanges do not routinely take place such as watching a Facebook video or seeing a Snapchat from the Campus Story uploaded by some random student the participant is not likely to ever know. These one-way interactions can propagate onwards or they may end at that final contact point. The varying thicknesses of the arrows convey the relative magnitudes between each participant and the piece such as how much time, effort, or thought was spent. For instance, the relationship of the Healthy 3C Grant recipients with the Mona Lisa art project is a very large double-headed arrow because that is where the most consistent amount of effort and time was inputted from initial conception in January to the project’s finish in November.
Online Engagement
The Project Springboard video uploaded on the University of Florida Facebook Page was the 5th most liked, 3rd most viewed, 5th most shared, and 2nd most commented of 19 videos from October to November. It acquired 63,683 views with over 17,000 views garnered in the first 3 hours of upload as well as 1,876 ‘Likes’, 263 shares, and 53 comments from Facebook users all over the country. The project was uploaded by students and featured as part of the Campus Story Feed 5 times over the course of the 3-week duration with exposure to 7.3K+ campus users of the app. In addition, the final photos were posted to a ‘Facebook Gallery’ in a public photo album with photos contributed by Van Truong, Tyler Busbee, the Gainesville Sun, the Independent Florida Alligator, and the College of the Arts. The photo album garnered 65 ‘Likes’ and 4 comments while some photos featured garnered a range of 1-65 ‘Likes’ and 0-11 comments. Positive comments constituted 36.5% (27/74) of the total comments and replies left on the University of Florida’s video, which also includes replies made to individual comments. Negative comments came from 7 users comprising 14.9% of all comments and replies. The remaining 48.6% consisted of users sharing the post with their friends via hyperlinked tags.
Examples of positive comments –
“this is so epic I love it :D !” “Very cool” “Nailed it” “Sensacional” “Very creative!! WOW!” “Now who thought of that!! Cool.” “Beautiful!” “Great job!” “good idea!!” “Very cool thanks for sharing” “unbelievable art” “Wow!” “wow!” “…his was just something cool students did.”
Some users used Facebook to claim ownership of their participation -
“I contributed to this! ^.^” “… look what they accomplished with our help lol” “… we did it!”
There is no data for how many users claimed participation via moments shared on Snapchat because of privacy settings on personal feeds. As students interacted with the Mona Lisa, some chose to upload their moments of her or with her to their personal Snapchat friends who either sought their own experiences or chose not to. Diagram 2 shows the ways in which our campus community uploads and extracts information about almost-live events and moments happening on campus. Snapchat and the Campus Story feature enables students to subscribe into a peer-view technology that allows them to upload to personal and private networks. I employ the phrase “almost-live” because users can snap recordings in real-time as they are happening and upload them so they are instantaneously viewable or expire after a 24 hour window. These uploads can be found on the user’s ‘My Story’ feed and perhaps even the ‘Campus Story’ feed. Snapchat provides a channel for the ‘you had to be there’ moments and does not enable users to upload “throwback” moments or to alter the timeline of their lives as they unfold. Facebook revolves around curated posts that are uploaded in a timeframe range of posted immediately to many days or even weeks after the event has occurred.
As you can see in diagram 2, a large group can be experiencing an event such as the Pop- Up Culture Event and upload it to not only their personal Snapchats but also submit the moments to the Campus Story feed which is monitored and curated by the company. If selected, the moments are made viewable to over 7,000 users in the geographical radius with location services enabled on their mobile devices. Users cannot forward these Campus Story moments onto their friends but do tell their friends to check out the feed themselves. Student B is shown with both a double-headed arrow and a singular arrow to show that he viewed a campus story that led him to submit a moment of his own to the Campus Story whereas Friend C is viewing moments from both Student A and the Campus Story but is only interacting back and forth with Student A.
Discussion
Our collective art project aimed to extend and open up the creation process to anybody. Many individuals express a desire to be ‘artistic’ or ‘talented’ which becomes a self-inhibition from the joy of creating. We wanted to show our community that art is not only highly approachable but that every level of skill matters. Individuals that passed by and stopped long enough to ask themselves whether they wanted to contribute did not need to know very much. They weren’t asked HOW the Mona Lisa would be exactly recreated or expected to see it through into its entirety. Students needed to connect that when given screws drilled into wood and thousands of rubber bands that someone, perhaps themselves, needed to stretch the rubber bands across the screws to get the project moving forward. Not every forward step needed to be the absolutely correct every step of the way.
What is apparent as we go through this diagram is that the community that is being revealed by the art project and technology is one that has many different levels and dynamic components. If it were not for the interactions between the grant recipients and the cultural consortium, I don’t believe the Pop-Up Culture Event would have had as much success because the cultural consortium offers a level of authority and credibility that not many students can bring together and the students offer insight into helping the event be approachable and appealing to their peers. Simply stating that something is important such as culture and art in education does not mean it translates directly into each student’s values system.
The piece is incredibly revealing because it shows in broad daylight not only the capabilities of all these people involved but also the limitations of crowd-sourced art. It is a visual average of the professional artist to the general hobbyist and the first-timers. The piece is a canvas but what it doesn’t afford users is complete freedom to choose whatever they’d like to design. Instead, participants are given an opportunity to collaborate with friends, professors, and strangers. We were able to watch this occasionally on Snapchat as users uploaded their moment with Mona ranging from stringing a single rubber band to spending a longer amount of time dedicated to transforming a particular section. The politics surrounding her were of a democratic nature. The supplies were all available and so were some instructions but the guidelines were basic and participants could stretch the rubber bands any which way they wanted to.
The size and form of the Mona Lisa was what made it seductive. The interactions it asked of its curious participants were easy. The board was physically indestructible and beautifully built. The quality of its construction caught the eye of passersby across the quad and it was structurally sound enough to support the weight of multiple participants as they climbed aboard to stretch bands across the most central region. There was no one there to reprimand the participants if they did it incorrectly because there was no incorrect way to stretch the rubber bands. The design was Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Mona Lisa’ and in a one-line introduction, people instantly recognized what the collective goal was regardless of differences in culture, language, education, or country of origin.
International students had light bulb moments and undergraduate to graduate students expressed extreme interest in the activity that had visibly accumulated and would continue to on the wooden canvas. The community that came to surround the Mona Lisa is representative of the diversity of the University of Florida campus from Physical Plant employees to a retired Chemistry Professor, employees in Tigert Hall and CLAS, as well as students from a wide range of majors and colleges in different years of their education. It rained for an entire week straight but someone had gone out of his or her way to tuck the cardboard sign-in sheets under the wooden canvas. There was no sabotage aside from humorous antics with Mona’s facial features and when it was time to transport her away, there were many random strangers who offered to help carry the wooden canvas as they saw our team struggling.
Even before individuals interacted directly with the piece, the piece facilitated interactions between the individuals. They sought permission and assistance from each other to participate. Some readily accepted the new responsibility and chose to guide the new participants before they had to leave since the explanation wasn’t too time-consuming or complex. Others deferred to the grant recipients or someone who looked more knowledgeable and experienced. Many individuals once invited and encouraged to participate, exerted a great deal of initiative and worked on bringing out the Mona Lisa’s real form to make her more recognizable or laid a framework for others to work along.
Other forms of caring erupted from the participants as a community formed around the Mona Lisa. Marianne de Laet and Annemarie Mol investigate the intricacies of the Zimbabwe Bush Pump ‘B’ type and the many forms of caring that arise in its fluidity. de Laet and Mol show that not only is the village community included in the Pump but also the Zimbabwean nation because “this national Bush Pump helps to make Zimbabwe as much as Zimbabwe makes it” (de Laet 237). What makes the Bush Pump so fluid in being is how forgiving the pump is. It still performs despite how badly parts are worn out and as much as a certain list of parts is suggested, it doesn’t require it. It is very forgiving in what it needs to run.
Despite the rain, the rubber bands remained elastic and the board remained strong. There were 3 colors available for rubber bands and when the black rubber bands ran out, participants took black bands from the more dense parts or they used the green bands to create highlighting contrast in place of the black’s intensity. This adaptability facilitates a more approachable relationship between the human users who help to maintain it - for their and the pump’s benefit. The Bush Pump and our Mona Lisa Project’s working order depend on the maintenance program, which depends on the community to keep it moving forward. Additionally, both constitute their communities because each affords resources that seduce the communities to form around them. “It is such programmes that they acquire a shape, a size and a materiality that they did not have before. After all, if pumps are to be successfully maintained, some degree of organization and division of responsibility are needed; the community needs to assume joint ownership and so affirm itself as a community” (de Laet 245).
The physical act of stretching a rubber band is representative of the participant claiming ownership of the creation of the art as well as claiming ownership of his or her place in the community. Some individuals claimed more responsibility for her progress by returning and repeatedly doing and undoing the rubber bands while others claimed a small part. People not only enabled the piece but people made it possible for other people to interact with her. The two forms of engagement I outlined in the results section are complementary. People shared their moments and increased the degrees of exposure others had with the piece. The Mona Lisa’s reach enabled more separate interactions by others as well as additional interactions by the same people.
What could have been one encounter that ended with the experience became something participants could relive through their uploaded digital moments on Snapchat or are reminded through the uploads of others. “The creative social acts which we see the results of on YouTube are not the equivalent of work, which you would reasonability expect to get paid for. They are more like the act of putting together a photo album, to show to friends, or the act of recording some music that you have composed, so that you can replay it to a fellow enthusiast” (Gauntlett 189). This sharing is essential to the project because it shows others that they can have a hand also. The work all the participants did as apart of the Mona Lisa project isn’t something that can be paid for by an employer. The amount of agency from so many different sources affords a sense of collaboration and belonging that can only come from a community that cares for and respects the piece for what it affords it in return.
Students cannot interact directly with the Campus Story nor the company but they can submit moments to the feed in hopes of being disseminated to the larger population. There are no guidelines for what constitutes a post worthy of being chosen by the company for the central feed and thus there are no ways to manipulate that community so one shows up more than others. What is the point then? The reason why students continue to submit their personal moments to a feed that is shown to over 7,000 students on the university’s campus is because it contributes to key bonding and belonging to the greater community through very ordinary moments or mutual experiences. Though they cannot forward Campus Stories onto their friends, they can act upon the new exposure by personally generating another moment or springing into a conversation via texting or Facebook messaging and posting. This is valuable to our team because we are very interested in what merits a meaningful experience and how that contributes to not only community building but also what piques peoples’ interest enough to bring them out and become another agent interacting in the flow chart.
I have said previously “users are actually a spectrum of varying skills, assets, desires, and wants. When designing anything with a human factor, especially for our civic engagement piece, we have to build in room for flexibility of their respective agency.” We are using the Mona Lisa to forward our belief that art can facilitate engagement while others are using it to forward their dissent. Multiple individuals felt the product was not worth the money and we are able to know this because the art facilitated interactions that the employed technology can reveal without bias.
The technology portion is very interesting to our team because we believe it reveals an additional and more organic way in which communities interact with each other. What were revealed to us are not just opinions but insight into what the community found to be ‘worthwhile’ and values. “Lanier reminds us, human beings are worth cherishing because of their rich, distinctive, individual natures, not because they are simple and predictable” (Gauntlett 197). We could not predict exactly what kind of participants we would attract or how exactly they would interact and appreciate the piece. As much as we tried to inscribe success and positive reception into the piece because after all it is a grant project, we could not have inscribed the care and community that grew to surround Mona.
Conclusion
As we’ve shown, we can facilitate engagement through art. We used Snapchat and Facebook to show further that more than one form of engagement exists. Participants did not stop interacting at the interface of the physical form; they continued to share and return to the piece. As strangers became acquainted with the Mona Lisa and the collective objective, they came to care for her. The social media uploads revealed not only an appreciation for the art piece itself but also for the people who came together to make it happen. A community formed around the well being of the Mona Lisa and individual participants claimed ownership for their part in Facebook comments well after their initial interaction with her. This was accomplished because the collective art project was attractive to its participants. Mona Lisa’s form was easy to visualize, offered a choice in how much each person could invest into it, and was easy to be proud of.
You could not easily replace the Mona Lisa piece with another object because you would lose the activity that arose from what it asked people to do. The Mona Lisa asked its participants to care for it but the feedback she provided in return was what the participants needed to keep caring. If rubber bands are stretched then she would grow more recognizable and that was something each person could be proud of propagating. If one person stretched a rubber band then he or she felt an affirmation and a sense of belonging to a community of friends and strangers. The Mona Lisa showed that people want to know they matter, not that their work would be permanent or if it would be undone at some point. Participants strung rubber bands and then went about their lives. They returned at a later date to check on her progress in person or through what was shared on Snapchat or Facebook. I believe that is what took a mere interaction and turned it into engagement.
Limitations
After receiving the grant award, our team realized that the ‘marketing’ would be extremely difficult for a do-it-yourself crew of students and we needed some form of organized help from the university. Teaming up with the cultural consortium on campus to host the Pop-Up Culture event helped to alleviate this barrier. Additionally, there was a lack of user biography. In order to further access the types of interactions going on and what part of the community they are coming from, I believe the participants should be asked about what they are contributing, where they belong on campus, how they found their way to the piece, and what they believe they are taking away from their contribution. This would give our team a better understanding of how the pieces fit together and the individual’s respective scale of values in relation to our piece.
Other noticeable barriers are in regards to our employed technologies. Despite the Facebook gallery being set to public, people still needed to have a Facebook account to view the photos, descriptions, and comments in the album. In order to use Snapchat, participants must be in the specific geographic radius of the University of Florida’s campus in otherwise they cannot access the 24-hour Campus Story feed. This means not just extracting from the feed but also the option to submit your uploads for review. Snapchat, the company, curates the Campus Story feed and determines what moments are ‘worth’ approving and sharing which grossly limits our ability to accurately determine how many users are engaged with the piece. They have their selection bias preventing the Snapchat domain from being as open and accessible as the physical public plaza.
Next Steps and Final Reflection
Public art does not simply have to be a display. It can be a useful form to facilitate engagement surrounding a multitude of topics or issues. Our institutions should make a greater effort to fund student-produced works. Where is student art on campus? If we can come to a university’s campus and see athletes practicing and playing games or students studying all over campus then why are we not able to stumble upon students creating? If other student activity is not confined to the practice fields or the libraries then why is creation kept behind the doors of studios? Yes, students are able to see finished products hanging on various library floors and in museum or student gallery spaces but our team believes there is more to be gained in witnessing the interaction process. How someone looks at a blank canvas, decides his or her next step, proceeds and then must turn back around to reevaluate before moving forward again is how we want our students to civically engage in debates and in their personal as well as professional lives.
We can start by funding an annual collective art project to be exhibited at one key location on campus where everyone is welcome to interact as they please. After the initial exhibition is through, I believe a series of lectures or debates could build upon the selected theme and this activity can surround the piece, which serves as a necessary springboard. Collective art shows its participants that their involvement matters but it also reminds them that they need the help of others, from various backgrounds, in order to complete the whole picture. Rather than only commissioning art from others, institutions should commission from within and allow their communities to continually recreate their own narratives. This will strengthen the community’s pride within itself.
Works Cited
de Laet, Marianne & Mol, Annemarie (2000) “The Zimbabwe bush pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology.” Social Studies of Science, 30(2): 225-263
Gauntlett, David (2011) Making is Connecting. Cambridge: Polity Press. (Chpt. 8 “Web 2.0: Not all rosy?” 185-216
Hofmann, Jeanette. “Writers, texts, and writing acts: Gendered user images in word processing software.” The Social Shaping of Technology. 2nd ed. Ed. D. MacKenzie and J. Wajcman. Philadelphia: Open UP, 1996. 222-243.
Winner, Langdon (1980) ‘‘Do artefacts have politics?’’ Daedalus 109: 121–136.
Appendix
Figure 1: (Separate page)
Figure 2: (Separate page)
Data from the University of Florida Facebook Video Part 1: (November 3, 2015 5:47PM to November 5, 2015 11:49AM) a. Van Truong: This is the Facebook "gallery" if you want to tag yourself or anyone you know who contributed to this collective art project!! https://m.facebook.com/lifesizevan/albums/10207866616729199/?ref=bookmarks As one of the individuals involved in overseeing the project, I can speak for all of us when I say we are floored by the community's ability to bring the Mona Lisa to life especially with little instruction or guidance! Thank you more than you will ever know!! You all embraced the very essence of this grant project and exceeded all expectations. a.i. 11 comment likes a.ii. 1 reply by Terah Kalk: “Van Truong you are so cool!!!” b. Tyler Busbee: That is so incredible I love the time lapse and before and after. Seeing how many people stopped and got involved makes putting all of those screws in worth it haha. Very cool to see that no matter the artistic background, that people from all across campus came together to make Mona happen! b.i. 2 comment likes c. Tyler Busbee: Thanks to everyone who came out and participated! Could not have happened without all of you taking the time to stop and add even just one rubber band! :D c.i. 1 comment like d. Nancy Winn: Van Truong I see you! this is so epic I love it :D ! d.i. 2 comment likes d.ii. 1 reply via Van Truong: Thank you for tagging me!! This is the first time I've seen this video. Ahh!! e. Adam DeBosier: I'm not gonna lie... The music led me to believe it would look a lot better than that. e.i. 31 comment likes e.ii. 1 reply via Erick Von Edwing: “Sarah Senfeld lmao” f. Scott Royer: “Mona Lisa...really?? that's what your going with?” g. Deleana Badger: “Such a waste of time. Surely there are nursing homes, orphanages, or homeless shelters nearby. Spend your time wisely helping your fellow human beings who need your help. What was the cost of the 10,000 rubber bands, 2,000 screws? That money could have been donated. So many causes in your area needs your attention.” g.i. 6 comment likes g.ii. 9 replies g.ii.1. Daniel Hopin: Why are you spending time on facebook commenting on this video. Seriously man, there tons of causes in the area that need your attention. g.ii.1.a. 15 comment likes g.ii.2. Deleana Badger: And I have given my attention today to helping. I didi not waste time and money. What will happen to the Mona Lisa junk creation once it is finished? 2,000 screws could be used by Habitat for Humanity. g.ii.3. Daniel Hopin: You make it sound like UF and its students don't already spend thousands of dollars and hours toward charitable causes. With the logic you are using, what is the point of doing ANYTHING? You could be spending that time and money on something for charity. g.ii.3.a. 1 comment like g.ii.4. Spencer Christian Gruber: Calm down this was just something cool students did. g.ii.4.a. 1 comment like g.ii.5. Bob Graham Center for Public Service: "To encourage literature and the arts is a duty which every good citizen owes to his country," —George Washington g.ii.5.a. 7 comment likes g.ii.6. Deleana Badger: The project has no redeeming social value. It is neither literature or artistic. Cool students would have recognized the stupidity of the project and refused to participate. g.ii.7. Deleana Badger: Daniel Hopin I did not make it sound like UF students don't already spend thousands of dollars and hours toward charitable causes. I made it sound like this one project was worthless as far as charitable causes were considered. The point of doing anything is redeeming social value. Does it benefit society? Does it increase the welfare of society? Your argument is weak. Quantify "cool" students, Spencer. You don't have to do anything, Daniel. You have to do something that benefits, changes for the better, achieves progress. I am spending time on Facebook attempting to stop projects with no redeeming value. I put in my charitable time. I believe in working to change society for the better, and I an involved in several projects whose purpose is just this: where are the needs? How can those needs be assisted. g.ii.8. Daniel Hopin: Deleana, you are right. Obviously every single thing done from now on must have your approval on it just to make sure we don't waste any time or money that could be going to charity. I can't believe we all have been so blinded to the fact that we needDELEANA BADGER to give her input on all of our activities and make sure we are on track and don't do anything she deems "worthless". THANK THE HEAVENS OUR SAVIOR IS HERE! Okay now that we are past that, I brought you a ladder so you can climb off of your high horse. You aren't some almighty being that knows whats best for everyone. If it makes them happy just leave them alone and let them do their own thing. g.ii.8.a. 1 comment like g.ii.9. Deleana Badger: Okay h. Ty Rothschild: looks like Michael Jackson h.i. 3 comment likes i. Pol-Julie Garcia: We miss Gainesville, one of the wonderful memories of having lived in Florida. i.i. 2 comment likes j. Katie Russo: close enough j.i. 4 comment likes k. Sean Snover: The resemblance is uncanny… k.i. 12 comment likes l. Andy Garfield: #triangleart l.i. 2 comment likes m. Augusta Byron: Awesome. I learned how to make a geoboard in grad school at UF when I was shortly a math ed major, but whiched back to back and got a Ph.D. I love art, and never envisioned a geoboard to be used in this manner. Congrats. m.i. 1 comment like m.ii. 1 reply via Van Truong: Thank you for sharing that, Augusta! I loved reading it. :) n. Marci Herrera Terrana: Very cool n.i. 1 comment like o. Susie O’Brien: Nailed it o.i. 4 comment likes o.ii. 1 reply via Kevin Catzmary: pretty sure this was a pinterest project p. Simoni Gheno: Sensacional q. Stacey Oretsky: Very creative!! WOW! r. Judy Ransom Hubbard: Now who thought of that!! Cool. s. Susan Budovsky: I saw that when I visited Gainesville & ventured onto campus in the Plaza of the Americas… Oh how I miss strolling thru campus <3 s.i. 1 comment like t. Anna S. Barrett: Beautiful! t.i. 1 comment like t.ii. 1 reply via Van Truong: Thank you, Anna!! u. Kelsey Wilkerson: I contributed to this! ^.^ u.i. 1 comment like u.ii. 1 reply: Thank you for contributing, Kelsey!! u.ii.1. 1 comment like v. Barbara Poynter: Julia w. Rosa Iris Simon Gracesqui: Waoooo a lake this. x. Best Water Solutions: Great job! x.i. 1 comment like y. Kasraoui Mohamed Hedi: good idea!! z. Pedro E Cruz: Cool Van! z.i. 1 comment like z.ii. 1 reply via Van Truong: Thanks, Pedro!!! :) aa. Luis F Breton: Halloween monalisa... LOL ab. Gary Kappelman: Elyse Howanski … Thought you might enjoy this! ab.i. 1 reply via Elyse Howanski: Very cool thanks for sharing ac. Cameron Dorrian: Courtney Dorrian it was rubber bands, not yarn ad. Alyse Tristram: Courtney Brock Deviney look what they accomplished with our help lol ad.i. 1 comment like ad.ii. 1 comment reply via Van Truong: Thank you Alyse and Courtney for contributing!! ae. Tyler Blair: Stephen you were right! af. Ann Waymreen: unbelievable art af.i. 1 comment like ag. Carissa Q. Bishop: Dylan Robbins it was rubber bands ag.i. 1 comment like ah. Yong Lun: Where is this displayed? ah.i. 1 comment like ah.ii. 2 replies ah.ii.1. Van Truong: It was in the Plaza of the Americas for ~2 weeks! It will be removed tomorrow evening. ah.ii.2. Yong Lun: Saw it oh my way to Matherly this afternoon! Thanks! ai. Bill McDonough: Fall aj. Earlene Pulley Gamble: Lisa Arrigo Brintley look at this ak. Rene’ Castillon: Cheri Roman Quartararo, check this out! al. Dennyele Gama: Cristian Cocconcelli we did it! am. Kyle Starling: Stephanie am.i. 1 comment like am.ii. 1 reply via Stephanie Cribbs Starling: Wow! an. Sruthi Natt: Aravind Krishna an.i. 1 comment like ao. Janette Becker: Sabrina Becker ap. James Safko: Ciara Ortega ap.i. 1 reply: wow! aq. Hildee Pike Ryan: Nicaela Ryan ar. Danica Kemper: CheyChey ar.i. 1 comment like ar.ii. 1 reply: Seems legit. Lol. as. Wendy Martin Reed: Thomas Ossmann at. Cali Sanford: Sean Haviland au. Jacob Baker: Theresa Ryan av. Sara DeBellis: Christina Mallica aw.James White: Nikita Pokamestov
Data from the University of Florida Facebook Video Part 2: Sorted By LIKES 1. 130 likes; 4,427 views; 3 shares; 0 comments (October 4, 2015) 2. 130 likes; 5,037 views; 2 shares; 1 comment (November 7, 2015) 3. 183 likes; 6,902 views; 26 shares; 4 comments (November 6, 2015) 4. 217 likes; 7,166 views; 45 shares; 16 comments (October 5, 2015) 5. 231 likes; 9,635 views; 32 shares; 5 comments (September 27, 2015) 6. 279 likes; 6,262 views; 47 shares; 1 comment (September 28, 2015) 7. 336 likes; 13,907 views; 40 shares; 4 comments (September 26, 2015) 8. 377 likes; 7,346 views; 38 shares; 16 comments (September 26, 2015) 9. 422 likes; 31,277 views; 257 shares; 12 comments (November 6, 2015) 10. 699 likes; 26,320 views; 214 shares; 35 comments (November 4, 2015) 11. 796 likes; 11,564 views; 85 shares; 19 comments (October 4, 2015) 12. 286 likes; 12,465 views; 33 shares; 2 comments (November 13, 2015) 13. 961 likes; 29,715 views; 92 shares; 17 comments (November 6, 2015) 14. 1,134 likes; 27,273 views; 149 shares; 29 comments (November 12, 2015) 15. Project Springboard Video 1, 876 likes, 63, 683 views, 263 shares, 53 comments (November 3, 2015) 16. 2,678 likes; 65,120 views; 988 shares; 99 comments (November 17, 2015) 17. 3,258 likes; 58,410 views; 664 shares; 41 comments (October 10, 2015) 18. 3,319 likes; 74,162 views; 877 shares; 47 comments (November 7, 2015) 19. 4,999 likes; 50,130 views; 738 shares; 30 comments (October 3, 2015)
Sorted By VIEWS 1. 130 likes; 4,427 views; 3 shares; 0 comments (October 4, 2015) 2. 130 likes; 5,037 views; 2 shares; 1 comment (November 7, 2015) 3. 279 likes; 6,262 views; 47 shares; 1 comment (September 28, 2015) 4. 183 likes; 6,902 views; 26 shares; 4 comments (November 6, 2015) 5. 217 likes; 7,166 views; 45 shares; 16 comments (October 5, 2015) 6. 377 likes; 7,346 views; 38 shares; 16 comments (September 26, 2015) 7. 231 likes; 9,635 views; 32 shares; 5 comments (September 27, 2015) 8. 796 likes; 11,564 views; 85 shares; 19 comments (October 4, 2015) 9. 336 likes; 13,907 views; 40 shares; 4 comments (September 26, 2015) 10. 286 likes; 12,465 views; 33 shares; 2 comments (November 13, 2015) 11. 699 likes; 26,320 views; 214 shares; 35 comments (November 4, 2015) 12. 1,134 likes; 27,273 views; 149 shares; 29 comments (November 12, 2015) 13. 961 likes; 29,715 views; 92 shares; 17 comments (November 6, 2015) 14. 422 likes; 31,277 views; 257 shares; 12 comments (November 6, 2015) 15. 4,999 likes; 50,130 views; 738 shares; 30 comments (October 3, 2015) 16. 3,258 likes; 58,410 views; 664 shares; 41 comments (October 10, 2015) 17. Project Springboard Video 1, 876 likes, 63, 683 views, 263 shares, 53 comments (November 3, 2015) 18. 2,678 likes; 65,120 views; 988 shares; 99 comments (November 17, 2015) 19. 3,319 likes; 74,162 views; 877 shares; 47 comments (November 7, 2015)
Sorted By SHARES 1. 130 likes; 5,037 views; 2 shares; 1 comment (November 7, 2015) 2. 130 likes; 4,427 views; 3 shares; 0 comments (October 4, 2015) 3. 183 likes; 6,902 views; 26 shares; 4 comments (November 6, 2015) 4. 231 likes; 9,635 views; 32 shares; 5 comments (September 27, 2015) 5. 286 likes; 12,465 views; 33 shares; 2 comments (November 13, 2015) 6. 377 likes; 7,346 views; 38 shares; 16 comments (September 26, 2015) 7. 336 likes; 13,907 views; 40 shares; 4 comments (September 26, 2015) 8. 217 likes; 7,166 views; 45 shares; 16 comments (October 5, 2015) 9. 279 likes; 6,262 views; 47 shares; 1 comment (September 28, 2015) 10. 796 likes; 11,564 views; 85 shares; 19 comments (October 4, 2015) 11. 961 likes; 29,715 views; 92 shares; 17 comments (November 6, 2015) 12. 1,134 likes; 27,273 views; 149 shares; 29 comments (November 12, 2015) 13. 699 likes; 26,320 views; 214 shares; 35 comments (November 4, 2015) 14. 422 likes; 31,277 views; 257 shares; 12 comments (November 6, 2015) 15. Project Springboard Video 1, 876 likes, 63, 683 views, 263 shares, 53 comments (November 3, 2015) 16. 3,258 likes; 58,410 views; 664 shares; 41 comments (October 10, 2015) 17. 4,999 likes; 50,130 views; 738 shares; 30 comments (October 3, 2015) 18. 3,319 likes; 74,162 views; 877 shares; 47 comments (November 7, 2015) 19. 2,678 likes; 65,120 views; 988 shares; 99 comments (November 17, 2015)
Sorted By COMMENTS 1. 130 likes; 4,427 views; 3 shares; 0 comments (October 4, 2015) 2. 130 likes; 5,037 views; 2 shares; 1 comment (November 7, 2015) 3. 279 likes; 6,262 views; 47 shares; 1 comment (September 28, 2015) 4. 286 likes; 12,465 views; 33 shares; 2 comments (November 13, 2015) 5. 183 likes; 6,902 views; 26 shares; 4 comments (November 6, 2015) 6. 336 likes; 13,907 views; 40 shares; 4 comments (September 26, 2015) 7. 231 likes; 9,635 views; 32 shares; 5 comments (September 27, 2015) 8. 422 likes; 31,277 views; 257 shares; 12 comments (November 6, 2015) 9. 377 likes; 7,346 views; 38 shares; 16 comments (September 26, 2015) 10. 217 likes; 7,166 views; 45 shares; 16 comments (October 5, 2015) 11. 961 likes; 29,715 views; 92 shares; 17 comments (November 6, 2015) 12. 796 likes; 11,564 views; 85 shares; 19 comments (October 4, 2015) 13. 1,134 likes; 27,273 views; 149 shares; 29 comments (November 12, 2015) 14. 4,999 likes; 50,130 views; 738 shares; 30 comments (October 3, 2015) 15. 699 likes; 26,320 views; 214 shares; 35 comments (November 4, 2015) 16. 3,258 likes; 58,410 views; 664 shares; 41 comments (October 10, 2015) 17. 3,319 likes; 74,162 views; 877 shares; 47 comments (November 7, 2015) 18. Project Springboard Video 1, 876 likes, 63, 683 views, 263 shares, 53 comments (November 3, 2015) 19. 2,678 likes; 65,120 views; 988 shares; 99 comments (November 17, 2015)
Participants Conceptual Grant-writing Phase: Aneri Pandya, Kiona Elliott, Elizabeth King, Dr. Jamie Gillooly, Melissa Vailikit, Rachel Damiani, Dr. Sophia Acord, Stela Patidar, Tyler Busbee, Van Truong
Participants: Aaron Lind, Aaron Zeiler, Abbie Clark, Abby Dougherty, Adil Siddiqui, Aditi Kumar (Pysch), Alejandra Garcia, Alex Mazza, Alexander Clark, Alexis Tellis, Alexus Crighton (Sociology), Ally Jach, Alyssa E., Amanda Zurick (sp?), Amy DeBacker, Anani Flood (sp?), Andrew Lim, Angela Lorarno (sp?), Angela N., Ankit Chandrakar (DAS), Ann J. Mehta, Anna Martin, Anna Morera, Anna Steffanini, Annie Gormaley, Avery Smith, Bhavya Sheth, Bill Zhou, Brandon Farling, Brandon Yang, Brendon D. Martin, Brian R., Brianna Tringali, Bridget Fainker (sp?), Brittany Kershaw, Caleb Chambliss, Carole Hokayem, Carolina, Carolina Gomet, Caroline Kim, Caroline Nickerson (History + Chinese), Cassandra Alamilla, Catie Lucey, Ceci Milton, Charena Detngelis (sp?), Cher, Chris Oliver aka Cheexy, Chris Torres, Christina Carvalho, Cindy Ku, cocco!!!, Coltaten (sp?), Cooper Rickerson, Coral L., Corina McBride, Cristina Arribas, Curran Kuehl (sp?), Cyndal Houts (History), Daniel Bonnells, Daniel Fritton, Danielle Rose (History), Danny Duffy, Dayanis Nodarse, Denny, Diana Gonzalez, Diego Aguero, Dirti Hari, Douglas Tam, Ediel Doninguez, Elisa Elsesser, Eliza C., Emily Pariseau, Emma "eyebrows" Green, Emmalee Barrett, Fanning Lin (Microbiology), Fiona & Farah - The F Squad, Florida Bridgewater - Alford (UF Tigert Hall, University Relations), George-Michael Cotarelo, Georgia Hayes, Ghazal Farajzadeh, Gianella Perez, Gustavo Sanchez, Haley S., Hali, Hannah Engle, Hannah Fell, Hannah W!, Helen Roldan, Helena Quach, Irene Panoff (Mother of alumni), @jaclyn_campbell, Janine Sikes (Tigert Hall Communications), Jasmin Henry-Fuller, Jasmine Haddaway, Jazzmin Favours, Jen Goldstein, Jenna Driscoll, Jennire Araque, Jessica Howard, Jessica-Marie, Jithin Gopinadhan (sp?), Jon, Jonathan Muñoz, Jonathan Patterson, Jordan Brown-Simpson, KAREN, Kate Yacona (UCF Alumni), Katherine Gui, Katlynn Bruce, Kelsey Londagin, Kelvin Alvarez, Kristy Nguyen, L.atheam, Larry Schwandes (Retired UF Chemist), Lauren Katz, Lauren Livingston, Lauren Miller, Lauren P., Lauren Suarez, Leila, Lili Vila, Liwen Tai, Logan Abbott, Lucas Owen, Dean Lucinda Lavelli, Luis (LT) Carbonell, Macey Wilson, Maddy Dwyer, Maddy Hamilton, Maggie Vreeland (Anthropology), Maitane, Mallory LeBlanc, Maria Cirillo, Marijari Udeshi, Marissa, Matt Ryan, Matt Smith, Meaghan Chin, Megan Mackool, Melanie Hew, Meshiooitti, Michael Nguyen, Michelle Molina, Miwa, Mollie Huber, Morgan Pinkerton, Najwa, Nancy Nguyen, [email protected], Nick N., Olivia Martini, Olivia Stewart, President Kent Fuchs, Rachel Dugard, Rachel Zive, Raihan, Randall Croom, Rebecca Katic, Richard Cai, Rima P., Robert Levin, Robert Lugo, Ryan (Young gootlee), Sabrina Han, Santi C., Sara Mauren, Sarah Hall, Sarah Koenigsceld (sp?), Scarlet Henriquez, Seth Downing, Sharonda Lovett, Sierra Miller, Sophie Hyman, TANK, Tamara Tavakoli, Taylor Atkins, Taylor Boatright, Taylor Gorczynski, Taylor Thelander, Teresa Ware, Terry Tran, Thanh-Van Le (FSU), Timmi Tan, Tori Marcy, Tran Nguyen, Trina C., Tyler Busbee, Tyler Vail, Uyen Vu, Van Truong, Yan Yin (Chinese & Computer Info), Zaina, Zoe Schaffel