Part 1 week 9-10

 

This project was to be realized in pairs. At the very beginning we were given a quotation as the theme of the project: I want to read only what will Help me unpack my own bag. I immediately associated it with experiences that built up our personality, our backpack which we carry through all life. A suitcase contains what we need to take – not what we want. We try to use the whole space of our luggage but also to understand the way in which it should be  constructed.

We should always ask ourselves how our experience relates to experiences of other people. This was supposed to be our base. We decided on the project in which randomly met on a street people will participate. We will ask them to describe in few words their most important memories. How they cope with the most difficult problems – let them illustrate it.

Today we also had to make photo – interpretation of our idea. We decided that experiences which build us up often either burden a man or protect him from falling.

For me, the theme is a mental shortcut. “I want to learn how to live” – that is my interpretation.

And I do not mean reading guides like “How to live to be happy”, but rather how to live and keep your integrity. It makes a big difference

We have no problems dealing with happiness. They start when we have to cope with burdens, our life-luggage; something which we have to take with us for a journey, not what we want. In the theme the stress is on experiences which burden us. Our photo interpretations reflect kind of negative and positive experience in the form of a big mental shortcut. One slim, supporting, light, exhilarating, with potentials for future. Another dark, oppressive and nasty.

We plan to subject random passersby to the same experience.

They will be handed out the same attributes: black and white paper. We are curious how they will use it to solve our task. They certainly are not used to illustrate their experiences through material objects.

 

Today we concentrated on the deconstruction process. 

We are used to the fact that we are usually trying to create something. We have the matter, subject and the idea. We expect the desired effect. In Poland we have the saying “We know something from the lining” – meaning very good. In the process of deconstruction I learned about the object and I tried to prepare it in such a way that it reflected my newly gained experience.

We deal with things on daily basis and do not concentrate on the logic of their construction. At the very beginning it is easy to imagine what we want to achieve, especially when encountered with something as usual as a jacket. But when a jacket changes its natural form, we loose our point of reference and become confused. When deconstructing my own jacket I kept going back to the previous stage to be all the time aware what is happening with, and beside this I decided to subject my intuitive thinking to certain rigors.

 

I assumed:

1. to change the axis of the object

2. to show the bottom 

3. to show the inner and outer part of the jacket

4. to look for geometry and softness

5. white fabric (the intruder) reinforces the assumptions

 

 

In response to the task I was trying to refer as much as possible to the designed jacket. I wanted to create certain entity. The material that I used is not sophisticated decorative fabric, but very simple material with a wide weave – It is called “jute” and potato sacks are made from it. It is also synonym for simplicity and poverty. But it contains the basic idea of the fabric: weft and warp. 

 

Designing the fabric I also used deconstruction process to further separate weft and warp. I “freed” weft from warp! It resulted in formation of random, dynamic directions which turned out to be interesting as patterns. (photo 1)

 

The next procedure was to introduce into my fabric the same weft but in bigger scale, different in color and material. The horizontal direction of the weft was repeated, however it appeared very strange in the matter. (photo 2a) white.

It was enough to use instead of the plastic a piece of white string and although I threaded the weft diagonally the whole is coherent and dynamic. (photo 2b)

 

I also combined this simple material with the reflective glossy paper. The combination turned out to be very irritating!  I imagined it in the extremely large scale, which would even strengthen the dissonance between these two materials! (photo 3)

 

 

Today we started to realizm our task. We chose two locations: Buckingham Palace, because there is a lot of tourists, people from many countries and different backgrounds, and Covent Garden as it is a place with a lot of street artists. In the very beginning we made an attempt to interact with people without any props. We wanted to analyze all emotions through facial expressions during speaking. However it proved to be very difficult, because regardless of the nature of a memory – good or bad, photographs looked very alike. Finally we decided to use our yesterday’s interpretation of good and bad memories and to give white and black paper to people which we interviewed. We asked them to make connection of their most memorable experiences with paper which we gave them. To our surprise many of them had problem with the understanding of our request. Maybe they felt that we interfere too far into their privacy, or maybe people are more concerned with life “now and here”, especially being on the trip to London and they do not want to be suddenly put in the context of deep reflection on themselves. The answers were very often quite literal, like “heart” symbolizing the first love, or “plane” symbolizing vacation. Most of the time “bad memories” had more artistic interpretations, like crushing or tearing paper into pieces, which added dynamics, expression and some symbolism to the experiment. It confirms the principle that bad or unpleasant things are in a way more intriguing.  

 

CONCLUSION 

I am not really sure what did we expect to achieve. We, who are studying how to convert ideas into image managed to generate only two abstract forms. And we already have some training. In my opinion people should be given more freedom of choice, wider range of materials to choose from to express their emotions.

 

 

 

 

After analyzing the deconstruction process from previous day, I decided to concentrate on relation of the fabric from deconstructed jacket with one which in a way repeated enlarged weave of the original. I imagined the upper parts of the composition as smooth, large surfaces and extremely dynamic bottom. 

It was mostly the bottom part which was subjected to deconstruction. Because of the complicated lower forms, the fabric seemed menacing down. It was very difficult to control simultaneously one part of the costume and the whole, and at the same time to keep proper relations between two different surfaces. 

We need all the time to control the relationship of one form over the other. As the effect the lower part of the project has been treated too uniformly. As far as the contrast of the dynamic bottom and calm top works well, the relation between three lower elements are too monotonous. Tomorrow I will try to make them more dynamic by closing down with a strong slant and diversification of the three bottom dynamic elements.

The effect of the actions In Covent Garden made us realize that we need to go one step further. We came up with the idea to give the same task to people from the artistic community. We were curious about the effect. People from CSM who participated in our project were pretty serious about it. However, the original design assumptions have been changed. There was no more clear division into black and white as so far, but the paper had larger format and in various colors. Subjects of the answers were very interesting. The students presented far more serious and private experiences. For them, we were just the same strangers as for people met on streets, but we were the members of the same community. In this I see the greatest privacy of their replies. As for the form, which was a bit of surprise to me, in general there was no difference. Statistically the number of literal and abstract answers was the same. Whereas obviously possibility of using colors directed participants to more natural answers. Especially girls surrendered to the magic of color and their thoughts were very poetic.

To sum up. 

The substance in which participants had to interpret the quote xtremely limited the form of the answer.

The answers din not reflect conflict situation “street people versus school people”.

Negative experiences generated more emotions and abstract thinking.

Positive experiences were more often illustrated by girls. Their answers were more often literal in shape and color ( see “Sunrise”, “Sister’s baby being born”, “The Grass”, “The Plane”). The most interestingly emerged from this scheme the girl who tore a silhouette of a human figure from a black sheet of paper to illustrate the word “love”. The silhouette and the background still constituted a whole!

The lack of attractiveness of the final vision, we substituted with the attempt of illustrating the psychological problem.(co to ma być!!!!)

 

 

In the process of deconstruction – destroying I have learned about the object and tried to craft (process) it in a way to include new knowledge about its construction as well as associations and emotions related to it. 

After all, the deconstruction process is not analytic slicing of a frog on the table! 

This process is very emotional. And the emotions are not any smaller then creation of an own vision.

Actually what is the difference between these processes? While creating, I have some idea about the final effect. I strive to something. While deconstructing, I “run away” from the thing in somehow unspecified direction. Only during the operation the vision of the object clarifies itself and actually we do not know when the deconstruction ends and creation begins!!!

The final outcome is a project in a sense indistinguishable from a one that could be developed in the reverse process, that is “construction”.

The thought which occurred to me during the work was to deconstruct the thing in such a way  that from four different points of view it would induce different sensations in viewers. 

Parallel axis I called “towards the ground – towards the top”.

Perpendicular axis “nature – geometry”.

Help
The license for this content.