finalnextstagelegacyreflectivethinking

well the project is sort of formally over – the first part – we await possible funding for part two - an exhibition, catalogue and symposium. I set out to be changed through the activity of pursuing that which I did not know within the framework of soft robotics. Our open-ended interaction with each other, both Makers with Scientists and Makers with Makers was the key to the success of the project.

Through the iterative process of meetings, sharing, making, reflecting and then repeating the process we created over 250 individual models that explored the initial collaborative vocabulary we constructed to work within. The work pattern we followed and the work we have made set out to be process led, learning through making and quick, cheap and unfinished so that ideas were at the fore of the investigative project. The project has enabled me to finally work creatively with a number of new processes and mediums and to confirm our interest in the activity of creative thinking as an end in itself.

Throughout my own practice I have developed a set of rules, a framework or paradigm to support, guide and enable me to make work. This activity is sometimes conscious as a creative exercise and sometimes subconsciously through the familiarity of making. This project enabled and supported the opportunity to break a large number of the rules I have created; examples being the act of cutting and joining of individual elements towards the development of new structures, working with a range of materials new to us encouraging new areas of problem solving and working in new media in the form of moving image.

Observing how others make work and having access to ways of thinking new to me has been liberating and has infused in me a renewed interest in creating physical work from a place of thinking, discussing and reflecting. The project has enabled time to grow, time to make sense of what I do, time to play.

The paper folding workshop with PhD students was instructive on all sides and is something I feel could be embedded within the Robotics department, a ‘hands on’ envisioning of the abstract concepts the students work with on a daily basis.  

There was an added bonus that was unforeseen. The scientists work in a large institution, have difficulty finding time to talk within their department and rarely stray from their own field. We as makers have no sense of hierarchy or boundaries and we have found ourselves acting as conduits between people.

Already there is a renewed openness to alternative ways of making and I feel there is a route to something ‘other’ that has been created and made possible. The ‘teaching by osmosis’ I witnessed between a PhD student and Thrish was very exciting and different to my engagement with graduate and post graduate students and is something that I will explore within the teaching posts I occupy. On a practical level the engagement with materials new to me and alternative ways of thinking and working will become part of my toolbox for making and problem solving in the future.

The project has been very successful – providing a ‘creative jolt’ both through my practice and away from it. I set out to be changed and I have been. Through undertaking the project strategy we developed; that of making, sharing, responding and reflecting - to be repeated until the end we both now have a huge body of work, a new tool box of starting points or thinking tools for new bodies of work that can be taken into a wide range of situations from education and health to architecture and design..

I set out to move towards and if possible occupy a place of not knowing. This was supported by all, an intention that underpinned our time together.  If something looked or felt familiar we moved away from it, often abandoning some tempting creative possibilities but always attempting to embrace change and the new. This resulted in the creation of models and structures unfamiliar to me, developed through an engagement with materials and media new to me. This combined with new ways of thinking means that our practices will undeniably be advanced in new and exciting ways.

One tangible factor of change is that over the past year I have been working with moving image as a way of documenting my practice but through this project I have been watching others hold and manipulate the individual structures in very studious ways. This has been an instructive experience which led me to create folded structures for film pieces that I see as the work itself.

The future is about working within and developing networks, creating systems to share what we do with a view to growing through understanding of others. Using this process we develop as individuals through the collective sharing of information. The project is a model that can be used to promote the idea of collaborative inter-disciplinary activity. It now needs to be made more visible.

My practice has been informed through the accumulation and exchange of knowledge within the project. I have learnt a number of new ways of approaching a problem through observing individual approaches to thinking and making which will continue to inform my own practice. Reflecting on and developing these new acquisitions has meant that I have been able to expand my conceptual and practical ‘tool kit’. This has facilitated a more experimental approach when making work. Making a range of innovative forms within the project has enabled me to develop new branches of work. To hold and manipulate these new structures in my hands has presented alternative opportunities towards informing my thinking.

There is an extended long-term impact associated with the project. On a personal level it will be continued through the people I come into contact with. The teaching both formal within teaching institutions and informal through workshops and residencies will be informed by the work I have been involved in throughout this project. Reports, projects, internal tasks within the degree courses and proposals I work on in the future will have at their core lessons learnt through Parallel Practices. 

somefoldedfolds

as part of the squeeze
fold bend and expand - Structural Memory in Deformable Objects project I’ve
been involved in over the past 2 months I’ve made a film. It shows some
of the over 180 sculptural forms and how they move when manipulated. filming by
Bob editing by Jim.

foldfoldfoldfoldingmachines

multifold - joining two of the modular pieces together at different folded points enables a number of different possibilities. a folded folding machine for hands.

foldfoldandfoldagain

working on the final multi-narrative structures. Decided on grey board and felt as ‘final, finished materials’ – I’m enjoying the historical art references they provide, especially the legacy of felt and its relationship to Beuys. The pieces provide numerous possibilities of juxtaposed shapes and spaces. I’ve editioned the piece so that a number of them can be left as a legacy within the robotics department and hopefully accessible within the proposed exhibition.  

asymmetricalreflection

looking towards the end of the project and working on the taxonomy of structures has uncovered interesting links to the starting point of the last project – finding connections as ever - mapping the whole process is a wonderfully reflective exercise enabling a level of understanding and proposing what should come next.

getting my head around the final final structure is a tricky one – working with backwards and upside down with two sides having asymmetrical shapes with reflective material juxtaposed with light absorbing black.

openingadoortowhatIdon’tknow

It was great to hear and in some instances see what the other teams have been up to. The final meeting of Parallel Practices made me even sadder that I was unable to get to the other meetings as I feel that I have missed out on the sharing element of the process to some extent.

Anyway – it was in another great new space in London that I had no idea existed – the Life Science Museum within the Hodgkin Building. To get to it we walked through a labyrinth of endless shelves with thousands of bottles of unfamiliar body parts , then past the oddest folk art I have EVER seen (see above) into a room where we sat a large table surrounded by glorious examples of skeletal structures. I and Naomi were first up and we talked about new tools, thinking space, open-endedness, mapping the process, creating taxonomy, although Richard named the activity. http://www.naomimcintosh.com/

Celia was great and the idea of carving out space for reflection and thus her revelation that at the core of her work was the idea of care was beautiful. She spoke very movingly about respect and responsibility around the bodies she had worked around. http://celiapym.com/

Karina was very focused like her project and she spoke eloquently about the role of the machine with and verses the hand, the value of what she was doing as a maker and how stitch and textiles or at least non-robotic materials could become a part of robotics ‘teaching’. I love the precision of how she uses language, supporting the finding of the right word after my questioning of Celia’s comment about the ‘ordinariness’ of her practice, rather than its extraordinariness in the world of the throwaway. http://www.karinathompson.co.uk/

Tamsin had her workbench nearby and was able to show us all sorts of wonderfulness; exploding ceramics infested with calcium, crystal growth on ‘bones’ and a see-though blue mouse. Listening to her and Richard talk about providing access to the space was empowering.  http://www.vanessendesign.com/

There were so many areas where we overlapped – although it was more of a constellation of possibilities - I could have listened all day. Some notes I made which I have to think about – it opened a door to what I don’t know, technology adding a new dimension, anatomy as an act, the supervised machine, sometimes I can sometimes I can’t, the idea - no the feeling of ownership, enabling others to rethink what it is that they do, I’m never going to know what I mean, negotiating a re framing of practice.

answerstoquestions

We have been asked a set of questions to enable discussion at Tuesdays meeting – some answers before discussing it with Naomi.

How have you pushed, expanded or challenged your practice through collaboration?

Throughout my practice I have developed a set of rules, a framework or paradigm to support, guide and enable me to make work. This activity is sometimes conscious as a creative exercise and sometimes subconsciously through the familiarity of making. This project enabled the opportunity to break a large number of the rules I have created; examples being the act of cutting and joining of individual elements towards the development of new structures, working with a range of materials new to me encouraging new areas of problem solving and working in new media in the form of moving image.

Observing how others make work and having access to ways of thinking which is new to me has been liberating and has infused in me a renewed interest in creating physical work from a place of making tools for thinking.

Do you feel you have fully tested and trialled your original idea that you set out to work towards collaboratively?

This has been very successful – providing a ‘creative jolt’ both through and away from my practice. We set out to move towards and occupy a place of not knowing. This was supported by all and underpinned our time together.  If something looked or felt familiar we moved away from it. This resulted in creating models and structures unfamiliar to me.

One deviation from our plan was that we said we would initially work separately for a period, developing our own entry points to the subject and then we would come together to collaborate but we naturally found ourselves working collectively from day one. This felt more appropriate and made sense in terms of the practical issues of location, our other commitments and the timescale of the project.

Can you prove this through outcomes and evidence or what looks new and different?

Yes – the work I have made set out to be process led, (quick, cheap and unfinished) so that ideas were at the fore of the investigative project. This way of being manifests itself in over 180 individual models (some consisting of up to 100 components). The project has enabled me to finally work creatively with a number of new processes and mediums I have trying to work with for some time; laser cutting and film making and to confirm my interest in the activity of creative thinking as an end in itself.

What is your residency’s impact or ‘success’?

I set out to be changed and have been. Through the project strategy we set up - of making, responding, reflecting, sharing I now have a huge body of starting points or thinking tools for new bodies of work that can be taken into a wide range of situations from education and health to architecture and design. I have made links with like minded people outside my sphere who I will defiantly work with at a later date.

Looking ahead- what do you or would you still like to do?

To see the impact of my presence. The timescale did not allow me to see how my thinking or the objects I have made fully impacts on The Centre for Robotics Research. There was a large element of sharing and exposure within the project but it would of being nice to be able to track an experience into a practical outcome – changing/saving the world through folding paper.

The ‘teaching by osmosis’ I witnesses was intoxicating and very different to my engagement with graduate and post graduate students within art institutions and something I shall try out but it would be interesting to be part of a PhD students lab team, supporting and working with a long term goal, providing an open ended sounding board for their research and in turn their thinking enriches our practices.

I feel that the work we have undertaken within the project needs to be made visible, both the objects themselves the process and our testimony. The dissemination of activity is the key to change.