AudienceLocker: A Device for Theatre Misbehaviour
11 OCT 2025 17 OCT 2025
- Combined three theatre misbehaviours into a satirical 3-in-1 device, AudienceLocker.
- Built Prototype version 2 and filmed a mock-ad video to show how it blocks chatting, phone use, and leaning.
- Next: real-user testing, high-fi material exploration, and a location/fandom-based series expansion.
Back to the Theatre
I returned to the three prototypes I had previously created. There was a faint sense of pressure about how to push the designs further—how to make them more extreme and more absurd. The goal for this stage was to develop an updated prototype and present it through a video situated in the real context of a theatre.
I recalled the moments that had genuinely irritated me in theatres: Please be quiet… Don’t use your phone… Don’t block my view… What if these three situations could be combined into a single device? This led to the idea of expanding the concept into a 3-in-1 device.
Inspiration
After testing the initial device, I explored several additional references. The ruffle collar was elegant and refined, yet somewhat ridiculous when viewed through a contemporary lens. Its resemblance to a dog’s protective collar made it even more ironic. I also referenced several punitive collars used historically to discipline those who misbehaved.
Prototype Version 2
The materials remained the same: a wire hanger and thick paper. I tested the size directly on the body and folded the paper in a zigzag pattern to create tension before attaching it to the wire frame.
Functionally, this version performs all three intended behaviours. The collar’s breadth physically prevents conversation with neighbouring audience members, while the section covering the lower torso blocks covert phone use. The entire frame is fixed to the seat, limiting the user’s ability to lean forward or move excessively.
For the video, I initially wanted to use an actual theatre and performers, but at the mid-point stage, conveying the core concept felt sufficient. I therefore filmed the scenario in the university lecture theatre, playing multiple roles myself.
Feedback & Reflection
In terms of communication, the mock advertising style was well received. I was told that the simple layering technique was effective, and that borrowing the tone of a tech company advertisement added a strong satirical quality.
Contextually, I was encouraged to test the device with real participants and in a range of different environments. For further iterations across different locations, it was suggested that I could continue using the same ideation approach or apply a simplified AEIOU framework.
The feedback on concept expansion was particularly helpful. There was a suggestion to push the prototype into a larger, stranger, more beautiful, elegant, and exaggerated high-fidelity form. Another idea was to explore what might happen if specific fandoms—anime fans, musical fans, horror fans—designed their own versions. A shared base frame with location- or situation-specific add-ons was proposed as another possible direction.
When asked about materials for a high-fidelity build, I realised I had not yet given it serious thought. The overall difficulty would vary depending on my familiarity with the chosen materials, so the advice was to start by deciding what I actually want to achieve, and then seek support during the making process.
So what do you really want to do with this project?
I want the person wearing it to feel embarrassed or self-conscious.
Then what else is needed for that effect, and what constraints might shape the design?After the mid-point, the next tasks became clear: a material exploration for the high-fidelity prototype, and a series expansion based on different locations and situations. These two strands will guide the direction of the next phase.
Reference
- Baudrillard, J. 1998, The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures, SAGE Publications, London. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526401502
- Bakhtin, M.M. 1984, Rabelais and His World, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
- Griffin, D. 1994, Satire: A Critical Reintroduction, University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
- Winner, L. 1980, ‘Do artifacts have politics?’, Daedalus, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 121–136. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652
More Stories
Sorry Not Sorry Week 3
Sorry Not Sorry Week 5