Using the snapchat AR filter I designed, I staged an explanatory performance where I’m basically displaying all the insights I gained through my practice research upon the phenomenon of the handshake.
The filter can also be used while interacting with people, so can be used as a guide to explore the variety of gestures and consequently power dynamics embedded through them.
An explanatory performance where I present the insights emerged throughout my research practice.
The ritual of the handshake is ruled by a specific set of codes. Intentionally or unintentionally the way we enact the handshake according to different situations conveys a variety of meanings. A cubic structure will serve us as a guide for the handshake and to interpret those meanings.
Most people shake hands with their right hand. The right arm is raised in the middle of the imaginary cube with the fingertips pointing ahead. The angle the palm traces with the horizontal axis of the cube is the most important variable to determinates one’s intention. The palm perpendicular to the ground is the neutral form of handshake. It is professional and respectful. After grasping the other person’s hand it usually follows a brief up-and down-movement along the vertical axis. The up -and-down movement might sometimes evolve in a back-and-forth movement, which consists of pulling the other person’s hand several times along the frontal axis. The back-and-forth movement has the effect of making the other person unstable. It is considered an aggressive way to assert control.
Again regarding the frontal axis, two possible handshakes can be identified:
the close handshake, when the hand is close to the bust, aligned with the face of the cube nearest to the body.
The far handshake, when the arm is fully extended, and the hand is aligned with the face of the cube furthest away from the body.
This distinction has to do with the laws of proxemics, which is the study of human use of space while interacting and communicating.
The close handshake regards the intimate space. It conveys either inclusion or possess. The far handshake set the boundary between the social space and the personal space. It is a more detached way to shake hands and has the purpose to limit and to stop.
Going back to the perpendicular handshake, its neutrality can be shifted by rotating the wrist. If the angle between the palm and the horizontal axis is acute the intention is to prevail on the other person. The smaller the angle, the stronger the will is to appear dominant, so the most authoritative handshake is when there is zero angle, and the palm is fully facing downwards
On the contrary if the angle between the palm and the horizontal axis is obtuse, then approach towards the handshake is deferential and it is considered submissive.
The palm facing downwards conveys control and supremacy whereas the palm facing upwards communicates support.
Another case where the power dynamics of the handshake can be defined by a dominant-submissive relationship regards the ascending or descending ideal line which connects the elbow to the hand. If the direction is top-down, drawing a diagonal line in the lateral cube’s face, the gesture manifests dominance. If the direction is bottom-up the resulting message is about subordination. This differentiation mostly depends on the height and position of the two people shaking hands.
Finally, in the ritual of the handshake a relevant role might be played by the left hand as well. The latter can eventually double clasp the handshake, overpowering the other person’s hand, or it can also be placed and press the other person’s upper arm or even the shoulder. The sequence of these three options is a progressive climax where touching the shoulder represents the most confidential but also most assertive way of interacting.
Over the past two weeks I tried to work simultaneously in two directions keeping open the option for both the network brief and the platform one. I believe the connections I intertwined with professional designers are the most interesting and potentially insightful aspect of my third unit so far, but at the same time I am aware that the possibility for a collaboration to flourish is complicated and it does not only depend on me, therefore I tried to think also about a platform as a plan B.
Just when all hope was lost, I got emailed back by Ted Yoon. He showed genuine interest in my research and he shared with me few interesting insights about his practice and the designing process he followed for his project Designing Dictatorial Statues. It was stimulating to hear from a professional the kind of critical choices he had to take to make the most out of his project. Because of the similarities between mine and DDS’s researches (in terms of general topic, but more in depth of methodology), some of the obstacles Ted Yoon encountered were similar to the ones I had. Hearing from him how he circumvented those blocks helped me to shed lights on my process.
Ted also shared with me the contact of Mark Henning, another designer whose practice has a similar subject matter of mine. Particularly he worked on a project titled Normaal: “a performative design research that explores how the handshake – a simple social gesture – has become coded with immense nationalistic meaning and examines how our definition of normal influences our suspicions of others” [Mark Henning’s website].
The starting point of Henning’s research was declaration letter by the Dutch Prime Minister at that time, which referred to normal behaviours people have to follow if they want to stay in the Netherlands and particularly to the idea that in the Netherlands is normal to shake hands. What Henning asked to himself was what is a normal handshake. The research developed following a series of iterations and experiments which eventually took the form of an interactive performance. He designed a platform/stage which forms a testing station for handshakes. On the stage he interacted with the audience playing with the absurdity of normal.
The more I was digging into Henning’s practice the more it helped me to inform my own research. I read several articles and I listened to a podcast where he was explaining Normaal, and I was fascinated and astonished to notice strong affinity my project shares with his research. So I decided to email him to grasp further insights on his practice. In particular, I am very interested in the sort of diagrams he designed and drew on the desk he used as the handshake station. The dissection of the motion through a methodical system is something I have also tried during my iterations. So I asked him if he could share with me some details about those diagrams. I am still waiting for a response but studying his practice already helped me a lot to organise the material I gathered and make sense out of it.
Henning’s diagram reminded me to DelSarte’s imaginary cube I encountered previously in my investigation. They both are tools used to conduct an analytical research and interpret the gestures.
Following a suggestion I received during the last tutorial discussion I decided to experiment with the software lens studio in order to create a filter which can be used while interacting on digital platform, for instance Microsoft Teams, the platform we are using for our communication. So, I created a filter which replicates a sort of DelSarte’s cube and stays attached to the person chest. According to how the person places their hands in the cube to approach a handshake different meaning are conveyed.
I am aware that at this point this experiment is not taking a lot of advantage on the digital platform. I find difficult to recreate a sort of interaction through this channel, and at the end the relationship between the two people shaking hands is what interest me the most about the topic.