Across each of the four days of the live, immersive, installation experience, there were seven sessions available. Participants were encouraged to book for a session and there was also capacity for people without a booking to attend. Some sessions had a maximum capacity of two participants, and others three. I was testing whether the variation of capacity made any difference to the participant experience. I allowed one hour for each session, which included:
Ten minutes for external onboarding which occurred outside RMIT Building 4, on Bowen Street, and involved me going over Participant Information Consent Forms, ensuring that participants were aware of their rights and setting some basic expectations for the experience.
Five minutes of internal onboarding with an actor playing an in-world character (more detail provided below).
Thirty minutes maximum inside the installation experience.
Fifteen minutes for installation reset and adaptions, and for participants to willing take part in a face-to-face survey outside of the installation/experience.
Honouring Mr. Stevens (HMS), Notes from Day 1 Monday Feb 24th, 2025
Monday February 24th was the first day of the installation. Overwhelmingly, for this first day, my overview/impression, is that participants felt welcomed, through the style and scripting used in “onboarding”. Onboarding is a term used in immersive theatre that describes how the creator can help their audience feel comfortable and how the audience learns about what they may/may not do in the event (Medium 2021). An actor playing an in-world character (“in world” meaning the character comes from the installation environment and does not belong in/is distinct from in the world outside that environment), was provided to enable participants to transition into the world(s) of the installation and to enable participants know what they could do in the installation, encouraging them to explore the two HMS spaces fully.
The installation was supposed to feel like a domestic environment and a deceased estate. I divided the room that housed the installation into two main spaces: one space I refer to as the “small space” and the second as the “large space”. To move between the small through to the large space, I created a transitional space - a wardrobe. Participants needed to pass through a sliding door and into the wardrobe. Once inside, there was shadow puppetry for some sessions and for all sessions a ball of red wool floating in mid air, behind a framed, perspex window. Participants exited the wardrobe through a second sliding door to make their way into the large space. Generally, across the small, large and transitional (wardrobe) spaces, I observed that participants opened drawers, moved things around, played with objects, gasped, giggled and “ooooed” and “aaahhed” at their discoveries in each space, and transitioned through the wardrobe seamlessly into the large space.
On this first day of the installation there was no visible performer inside the installation. Some sessions included shadow puppetry (the puppeteer was concealed in a hidden section of the wardrobe) and others did not. The shadow puppet screen was hidden by a tapestry during the sessions without shadow puppetry so participants, should they have recognised the framed shadow puppetry screen as a site for puppetry, would not hold expectations of shadow puppetry, nor experience fear of missing out. Across this first day, I have not overheard or spoken to anyone who was impacted by the shadow puppetry as a particularity of the experience.
What surprised me was that some elements I had placed into the installation, with no expectation of eliciting playfulness, became sites for creative play. I had placed a vintage, pink, floral hexagonal box in the small space, which contained a 1950’s black, fur-rimmed shawl. I placed the box into the small space because it was an aesthetic fit. The box became a place of intrigue and people pulled out and played with the shawl. One participant walked around wearing shawl, taking it into the large space, however I feel that this participant was deliberate in his performativity because of his and my relationship. In the past I have been his mentor and have employed this person on two projects. He, along with his partner who I also know, played quite performatively in the large space in particular. I made a decision to step out of the large space, withdrawing myself from their eyeline, but still able to hear, to see if this made any difference to the pair’s behaviour. Once out of sight, I overheard one say to the other “Well what’s the point with no one here watching?”. The impact of the researcher as observer was very obvious in this instance. I wonder about the impact of the researcher as observer, and propose to overcome this obstacle in future iterations.
In one end of the large space I had positioned a green children’s table setting (referred to from here on in as “children’s table”), comprised of a small, squarish, green table with four lift-up seats. I had placed small plastic dolls in each of the lift-up seats. Some participants discovered these, some did not, but most of those who did find the dolls pulled them out and played with them at the table, making worlds or scenarios.
Also on the table, I had placed a line of pieces of red wool, as a set-up prop ready for the performer/Minotaur (referred to here on in as “Minotaur”) who would be in place from Tuesday onwards. Many participants sat at the table and played with the wool, creating patterns, shapes, and in some cases combined these with the dolls in world building. I am certain that with a Minotaur at the table that this play will be arrested as participants will be a) expecting the Minotaur to “do something” – perform, and therefore participants will place themselves in the position of audience members who “receive” performance. Also, given the parameters of the experience, the borderless nature of exploring, I believe participants will find the Minotaur’s presence a barrier to play.
Adjacent to the children’s table I had positioned Christmas tree, with warm-coloured fairly lights, but no other decoration. Under the Christmas tree I had placed pink-wrapped gifts. Each gift contained a variety of plastic animal mask - dog, cat, wolf, chicken and rabbit. The gifts under the Christmas tree have been problematic – meaning, they have been a threshold to participation. Most participants have been reluctant to open a gift. We experimented with several variations in the actor/character onboarding script, to encourage participants to cross this threshold to open the gifts. Dashiel Agar, who has been conducting surveys, observed that people wouldn’t open the gifts because we are conditioned not to do so. Liam Misuraca, art assistant, suggested gift tags – which I had been considering, but his idea prompted me to add gift tags with “For You” attached to a gift (maybe one – maybe more – need to test).
Here is detail of the original onboarding material created with the actors. This was adapted across the four days of the presentation.
ONBOARDING MATERIAL AND SCRIPT
Before meeting the host, participants were onboarded with the PhD information from outside.
OPENING CHARACTER – Hostess/Host - Rose/Tom (referred to as “hostess”)
Props:
· Clipboard + pen
· Pink-wrapped gift parcel
· Brass bell
Arriving at the top of the stairs, participants, two or three at a time, are greeted by the hostess. She is dressed in a 1950s house coat, with pearls and hair tied up neatly. The host wears a vintage suit and tie. The hostess is high status but operates with kindness. The hostess is genuinely curious about each participant, and, armed with a clipboard and pen, must ask participants to complete a survey before they enter the experience. The hostess records the answers on a paper on the clipboard.
SURVEY SCRIPT
ROSE/TOM: Hello and welcome to Honouring Mr. Stevens. My name is Rose/Tom. First, may I have your first name? In turn, if you please:
Jot these down.
ROSE/TOM: Thank you. Now I have three questions to ask you each before you enter. Please take your time, and I will note down your answers as we go along. Are you ready? Would you rather:
1. Fast or Slow?
Jot down their answers (F or S)
2. Canine Feline OR Vulpine? (Which means fox-like - explain if participants ask. Jot the numbers with their answers (C, F or V)
3. Knowing OR Not Knowing (K or NK)
Jot down their answers (K or NK)
Thank you very much. This is very informative to the research. (Slightly tongue in cheek but delivered seriously). Before you go in, a reminder that you have around 30 minutes inside, but you can leave at any time. When it is time to leave, you will hear me ring this bell (gently ring bell). Inside, feel free to touch, explore, open and close drawers or whatever you find, and rearrange things as you please. If you do go through a door, please close it after you. Lastly, please move in a clockwise direction only. Lastly, there is tea and vegan treats, should you choose to imbibe. This way please.
Lead them to the three doors, make a selection but choose to let them through the one on the right. Then just before they go inside choose one participant and give them a pink-wrapped gift parcel. To this participant:
Details x 3 of silhouettes in the glass of the three entry doors: Vulpine (L), Canine (C), Feline (R), exterior to entering experience, Honouring Mr. Stevens, Tuesday March 25th 2025. Photo courtesy of Carlo Tolentino.
ROSE/TOM: (Select a participant, the one who you think might be the most playful, and give them a pink-wrapped gift).This is for you. Please take this with you. You will know when to open it.
(Inside is a plastic animal mask)
NB – I (Penelope) will ring the bell. This gives the illusion that the host/shadow puppeteer and the hostess/Minotaur are each separate entities.
Detail: “World Box”, from the small space, Honouring Mr. Stevens, Tuesday March 25th 2025. Photo courtesy of Carlo Tolentino.
Detail: Minotaur Shadow Puppet, Honouring Mr. Stevens, Tuesday March 25th 2025. Photo courtesy of Carlo Tolentino.
Detail: Participant play with objects on the green children’s table, the large space, Honouring Mr. Stevens, Monday March 24th 2025. Photo by Penelope Bartlau.
The small space, Honouring Mr. Stevens, Tuesday March 25th 2025. Photo courtesy of Carlo Tolentino.
Detail: Observer, Klari Agar, in bunny mask, the large space, Honouring Mr. Stevens, Wednesday March 26th 2025. Photo courtesy of Klari Agar.
Photo Gallery various installation areas, Honouring Mr. Stevens, Tuesday March 25th 2025. Photos courtesy of Carlo Tolentino.
Reference Monday February 24th:
Wicks K (2021) Crafting Immersive, Pt. 2: Onboarding The Audience, Medium Website, accessed 30 March 2025. https://noproscenium.com/crafting-immersive-pt-2-onboarding-the-audience-45007d321542
Honouring Mr. Stevens (HMS), Notes from Day 2 Tuesday Feb 25th, 2025
There were several changes today that had impacts that surprised me.
The following are the changes:
· Bodysuit performer in all sessions, the Minotaur.
The large participants at the green children’s table, Honouring Mr. Stevens, Tuesday March 25th 2025. Photo courtesy of Carlo Tolentino.
What surprised me about this was that people were not demonstrating behaviours of surprise or intimidation with the Minotaur seated in the room. Participants seemed to move around the space in similar patterns as I had witnessed on Monday with no body puppet performer in situ. I had expected there to be a surprise, shock or a gasp reaction from participants. Not one. I suspect that the reasons for this are the following:
o When participants reached the Minotaur, I speculate that they were accustomed to freely explore the spaces on their own terms, pace and rhythm: by the time they arrived at the Minotaur it was accepted as part of the world without much question. It was the opposite of a jump scare.
o By having the Minotaur stationed geographically where she was in the space, I believe it gave participants the sense that there was something performative happening that would signal the end of the experience. In a future iteration it would be prudent to test what happens if the Minotaur positioned in a completely different location within the experience. It would be valuable to see if this alters any participant responses or reactions. For this iteration I am unable to shift the installation around because of constraints with lighting, sound and other design elements.
o I gave the Minotaur performer specific direction, but left space for improvisation. I noticed that the performer being at the green children’s table prevented people from freely playing as they had the day prior with the wool, the dolls and even the food. All of that free play was interrupted by, I expect anticipation of performer action. Tomorrow I will experiment with putting the performer in a different position, proximal to the location where she was today, to see if this changes anything.
· Switching from child to adult chair.
For some sessions I switched one of the children’s chairs at the children’s table for an adult-size chair. It is too early to say whether this had any impact for participants. What I do know is that either way, participants still joined the Minotaur at the table. I will keep this part of the experiment active across the next two days except for when I move the performer in a different position.
· Experiment with four audience members
This happened by accident. I needed at least two people for the first session because we were photographing the work. I only had one person booked and I called in a favour from a friend. In the meantime, two other’s arrived who hadn’t booked, so I took this as an opportunity to see what happens with four people. As I expected, four people is too many for the scale of this installation. It interrupted flow, and it was too cramped for four people to travel through the small and transition spaces together. The shadow puppetry played twice, two people at a time, which we had designed as the capacity of the wardrobe interior. The two people who came through second didn’t seem to mind having the extra time to explore elements in the small space.
· Adding tags to the gifts and placing these in participants’ sight line.
By adding the tags to the gifts and then positioning the gifts in Christmas tree at adult eye-level the threshold preventing participants from opening a gift was, if not eliminated, at least partially dismantled. A gift or gifts with tag/s were positioned on the Christmas tree so as participants entered the large space they could easily discover them. There was one tagged gift for each participant, excluding the person who had received a gift from the hostess upon entering. The inclusion of the gift tags prompted some participants to unwrap the gift. This meant there was more mask play throughout each session. I adjusted the hostess’s onboarding dialogue to include the following across the installation period :
Monday 24th - “This is for you”, to the participant receiving the gift. From Tuesday 25th - “This is for you, you’ll know when to open it” to the participant receiving the gift. Which was expanded in later Tuesday sessions to include participants who had not received a gift in onboarding: “There is something inside for you too” (whispered).
By making these adjustments the threshold to opening the gifts was removed, but not consistently. There were still participants who did not open the gift, even if the gift was given directly to them in onboarding. For future iterations, more adjustments need to be tried and tested to see if this threshold can be successfully and consistently dismantled.
· Onboarding issue
I noticed that many participants were rushing through the small space, and several missed the shadow puppetry sequence, or only stayed for part of the shadow puppetry. In listening to and observing the performer, I realise she was directing participants by asking them to “head straight through” the small space and through to the large. The performer’s intention was to keep participants moving in a clockwise direction, but this phrasing meant that participants responded by passing quickly through the small space. Once I addressed this with the performer, the participants’ behaviour shifted, and most took their time to explore the small and the large spaces.
A participant gift with a gift tag. The large space, Honouring Mr. Stevens, Tuesday March 25th 2025. Photo by Penelope Bartlau.
Honouring Mr. Stevens Notes from Day 3 Wednesday Feb 26th , 2025
I came up with a solution to the geographic location of the performer without having to change the installation structure. I moved the Minotaur to the wooden chair, positioned on the western side of the large space, facing the Christmas tree. This is a midpoint between the couch and labyrinth game, and the green children’s table. Participants could freely access each site within the space without interacting with the Minotaur, and could also elect to interact with the character should they wish to do so.
For an action, I asked the performer/Minotaur to cut pieces of red thread (wool) from a ball of wool, and drop the threads to either side of the chair upon which she was sitting. This was an activity that could be observed by participants, and while a solo activity, I speculate that the cutting of thread was simple enough that participants would not feel as though they would interrupt the Minotaur’s concentration if they decided to interact. I had directed the performer to be available and open to interaction, but not to initiate it. I wanted to see if participants would self-nominate engagement. Most participants entered the large space, and saw the Minotaur straight away, and most did not overtly react. Most participants took their time to engage with and explore different elements and sites within the space, and most seemed to ignore the Minotaur – but not all.
The mask presented some difficulties for the performer as it was very restrictive to vision. One participant made an “offer”, which can be any sort of action or activity (Johnstone 1992) as he approached the Minotaur. He wore a black shawl he had discovered in the small space, and was wearing a chicken mask. Combining the mask and shawl, he played - or offered - a bird dance to the Minotaur. The performer did not see this because of the mask’s visual restrictiveness. For the next iteration I will need to solve this as full performer visibility is essential. To miss an offer is a mistake in the research, and possibly disappointing or confusing for any participant who is initiating and inviting play. Missing such an offer may have been interpreted by the participant as a creative or research choice. I will refer to the feedback notes to investigate whether there was any feedback from Wednesday’s sessions that could correlate the circumstance, and whether the participant made any comment or reflection about this.
Reference February 25th:
Johnstone K 1992, Impro: Improvisation and the Theatre,
Honouring Mr. Stevens Notes from Day 4 Thursday Feb 27th, 2025
I decided to keep the Minotaur in all the sessions today, with the exception to the final session as the performer was not available. I switched out the adult and child chair from the green children’s table, to see if this had any affect.
Overall, in observing participants across all sessions, today’s and the days prior, there has been great diversity in playful behaviours and otherwise. There are many reasons for this:
What experience a participant has just left, and what they are arriving with as they encounter the experience.
If participants are accompanied by a person/people that they know, or travelling the experience with stranger/s.
Personality – which includes what level of comfort or discomfort each participant can tolerate.
During the final session, apart from the absence of the Minotaur, there were two points of difference. Firstly, there were four participants in the session, and secondly the performer doing the performative onboarding forgot to mention that “there is tea and vegan treats, should you choose to imbibe”. None of the four participants was known to each other. What happened was fascinating. They travelled together, split into pairs, re-paired, had moments of solo exploration, but across the spaces they shared their discoveries and thoughts. One participant was very tempted by the iced-vovo biscuits marshmallows, but as this point had been skipped in the onboarding, she wasn’t certain if the food was safe to eat or not. She shared her thoughts and her temptation with the others, not directly engaging with any participant in particular, but speaking her mind to the room. Other participants either responded, or were focused and engaged in their own exploration. Ultimately, the four participants came together at the children’s table, and sat, eating the treats and drinking the tea.
Across the four days
The three doors
Performer, Monique (Mon) Warren, who played Rose for onboarding and the Minotaur during Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s sessions, made a choice with the three doors, to try to open the Vulpine and Feline doors before finally trying the Canine doors. Mon appeared to struggle with the first two doors (Vulpine and Feline), and was able to open the Canine door with some apparent relief. This idea of Mon’s was passed onto Laura Aldous, performer in the same roles across most of Thursday’s sessions, and to Jason Lehane playing Tom for onboarding across all sessions on Monday and for the last session on Thursday. As Jason, on Monday, hadn’t taken the same “struggling” approach with the door opening, and rather appeared to make a selection of the Canine door over the Vulpine and Feline doors. Having these diverse approaches, the performer struggling versus selecting a door - had a significant impact on participants.
What transpired was, that with Mon’s approach, participants believed that the installation was across two extra rooms. One participant, performer Laura Aldous’s partner) left HMS after 20 minutes, and Laura informed me that he was expecting more rooms and so rushed through. In chatting with participants post-experience, I received the question, “were there more rooms” numerous times. People were extremely curious about this. When I disclosed that there were no extra spaces, one participant responded “Oh I really wondered! There was so much detail in this installation I didn’t know how you could have possibly managed more rooms!”. My sister, Titian Bartlau, who is very familiar with my creative practice, was likewise unsure if there were extra rooms to explore. When I told her the truth, she laughed. This little addition of mystery, that there may have been extra rooms, had good and bad points. The good, that it made participants wonder, the bad, it made them rush when they may have taken more time in the installation.
The mask epiphany
Across Monday, Tuesday, and the first half of Wednesday, participants could receive or unwrap five different masks: chicken, rabbit, dog, fox, or cat. It took me (what felt like) forever to make the realisation that there should be a connection between the silhouettes on the glass doors and the masks that were offered throughout the installation. We removed the chicken and rabbit masks for this reason. Klari Agar, who was in an ethnographic observational role during some of the sessions, wore a rabbit mask. I selected a rabbit because:
This animal is non-threatening, meaning that a fox could be interpreted as a trickster or aggressor where a rabbit does not.
Including a person in a mask adds to the overall weird aesthetic of the work. I did not wear a mask when I was in the role of ethnographic observation, as I had met participants in the outside/external to the building onboarding. If I had donned a mask I believe that this would have dented participant trust, because to “pretend” that I was someone other than myself - a masked character, is an insult to participant intelligence. This action might imply “pretend that I am not here and I am something/someone else”, which clearly I was not. Klari, who was not introduced to participants external to the experience, while clearly not performative, added an odd or weird element.
Presenting a person in a mask within the installation may have had an influence on participant choices whether to don a mask or not. If someone else is doing it, perhaps a participant would not feel as “silly”.
I would like to explore the possibility in future iterations, to match each participant’s choice, vulpine, feline or canine, with what they receive as a gift. As much as was possible, the hostess matched the mask given to one participant with their choice of animal, but it was impossible to achieve this consistently. After eliminating the chicken and rabbit masks, I observed a pair of participants (known to each other/a couple), making sense of the masks they had either received, or unwrapped. When the correlation wasn’t exact, as it was in this instance, the couple discussed their masks, and arrived at their own logic and narrative as to why they had received the masks they each had. I found this interesting to observe: people seek and find reason as they need and want to, without the over-prescription of the artist.
Participants play with masks and costumes, the large space, Honouring Mr. Stevens, Tuesday March 25th - Thursday March 27th 2025. Photos by Penelope Bartlau.
Play at the green children’s table
Across the four days, participants played with the materials - wool strips, tea cups, pink tissue paper, brown baby dolls, food and sometimes easter eggs (hidden in the box under the lift-up seat of the green children’s chairs). Unfortunately I didn’t have capacity to document every iteration of the play, but below is a gallery of material play left behind after participants had exited the installation.




























Participants play with materials on the green children’s table, the large space, Honouring Mr. Stevens, Monday March 24th-Thursday March 27th 2025. Photos by Penelope Bartlau.
NEXT STEP? To analyse the feedback to gain greater clarity and insight into my PhD question: Gasp, lean in, and explore: how live immersive installation experiences can provoke wonder and playfulness in adults, and to follow the rabbits down research rabbit holes to enrich the research project. Participants play with materials on the green children’s table, the large space, Honouring Mr. Stevens, Monday March 24th-Thursday March 27th 2025. Photos by Penelope Bartlau.
NEXT STEP? To analyse the survey and interview materials, to digitise and analyse the ethnographic observational data materials, and to collate participant information data gathered during the booking process. I aim to gain greater clarity and insight into my PhD question: Gasp, lean in, and explore: how live immersive installation experiences can provoke wonder and playfulness in adults, and to follow the rabbits down research rabbit holes to enrich the research project, with the intention of:
Presenting project documentation and findings at the June WIP.
Developing a series of smaller test sites for the next iteration in August/September this year.