There were quite a few challenges over the duration of this project; whether it’s regarding the challenges that surfaced whilst working alongside my partner or just the tasks in general. Now that the project is finished, I genuinely appreciate communication now especially when working in groups/pairs. This is because often times I found myself lost and confused as to where the project was leading to. The overall communication between us was not the best especially when it came to the project itself which made the tasks harder. We also have very different work ethics. It was interesting and difficult working alongside someone to start the year. Personally, I got accustomed to doing things on my own without someone else’s input; however, this experience gave me a glimpse of what it would be like to work alongside others. It is important to create a strong sense of cooperation while still in university. We have to be collaborative and learn how to compromise. Through this group/pair project, you always have to speak your mind because it helps discuss, improve and/or resolve issues. Also, when working with someone, you should have mutual agreement and understanding because it helps the project flow better all together. 

Our collaboration was not 100% successful because of a few reasons: 1) communication, 2) the way work was ‘distributed’ wasn’t a collaboration; I found myself making small models, sketching concepts, writing down ideas and barely getting any input from my partner, 3) similarly, there wasn’t equal effort put into the project. I found myself contributing more than my partner did. Yes, majority of the ideas were agreed but where the ideas come from and execution of experiments were mainly coming from me. 

From the project itself, I found it challenging on how the brief was open - it was harder to come up with initial ideas as there wasn’t a lot to work with; however, it taught me that sometimes I have to think outside the box.

This project made me aware of my own strengths and weaknesses. I realised that I had so much to learn especially when using digital programs. For this project I contributed rapid visualisation sketches of concepts and developments (as seen throughout my blog), small quickfire models made out of paper to explore forms and shapes for our waharoa, I also made the final model out of formacote cardboard and pins; I also put together one of the two A1 sheets - for this, I asked and consulted my partner whether everything was good and that if she wanted to add or change anything there, she could but alas, she didn’t. 

Overall, the project we produced was sufficient - I can’t say whether it’s good or bad; all I know is that that this is only the beginning and there’s always room for improvement. Hopefully, we’ll both be able to use the things we’ve learnt in this project in the future. 

After the first exercise we then had to make a drawing tool out of the structures we’ve already made in week 1. 

(drawing and notes on how to alter the structure, 05/03/18)

Because our structure already moved, it was fairly easy to come up with different ideas on how we could change it or make it into a drawing tool; however, the hard part was making it happen and to see whether it would actually work or not. 

Our possible options were:

- we could attach paintbrushes to the end of each arm on either side of the stucture

- we could put a drawing tool of some sort to the joinery itself and as it spun, we should be able to get half moon marks

- we could also alter the positioning of the arms and attach some form of media to it for mark making

- we could also use momentum to create abstract patterns

- we could mask parts of the paper itself and then add media to the arms to create specific patterns

- we could also remove the arms itself so we can spin the middle part vigorously but we need to have a lot of paper so it catches all the splatter 

- we could drill a hole next to the joints and stick a drawing tool in it so it is extra secure

Possible outcomes were:

- mainly circular patterns produced

- if we used the momentum method, it could help create a lot of splatter

Trial 1: we tried adding the paintbrush to the arm

Outcome: it didn’t work as well as we thought it would. Once the paintbrush touch the paper, the momentum would immediately die down. We did have some splatters but it wasn’t as large as we thought it would.

Trial 2: removing the smaller ‘arms’ on either side and attaching the pencil to the longer component

Outcome: it made ‘half moon’ marks - we would’ve liked it better if the curves were more pronounced; however, that can only be achieved if we had a larger piece of paper covering the entire structure’s motion.

Trial 3: using the same method as trial 2 but using a paintbrush

Outcome: similar shapes as the last trial but because we were using a paintbrush, it gave more character and movement rather than just stagnant marks. We loaded the brush with extra mixture of acrylic paint and ink so that when it comes in contact with  the paper, it would drip and add more movement to the drawing.

OUTCOME

We decided to combine trial 2 and 3 method to create our final drawing. We wanted to emphasize the idea of movement especially because it was such a huge component of our structure. The finished drawing had a lot of ‘half moon’ marks that reflected the contraflexure  diagram (shown in previous blog post). We also want to accentuate the transition from openness to closeness in relation with static and movement.