Panel members: Matt, Vasanthi, Sanjay
Review 01 – 13th July 2.30pm
• Nalisha has done a wide range of research so far but her subject area is very broad & complex. Research now needs focus and depth of understanding. Outcome are not defined at this stage.
• How can you focus this project?(Concentrate on a specific type of violence/ culture/ age group of children).
• Define one clear research question to help give you goals.
• Speak with Kalpana and other child psychologists to get an understanding of the subject’s complexities.
• Avoid generalizations - your research will help you to understand the complexities and layers.
• Workshops - What will these include? What are they for? What is your plan of action? What do you hope to get out of them?
• Is this an art project or a design project? Are you thinking to design something to counter an issue or is this more about social commentary on an issue?
• Look at: James Bulger murder case, Edward Gorey’s illustrations, Hybrid objects, Violent objects/ Toys, Computer game culture, Theory of violence.
Next review meeting date – 5th August, 1:30 pm
Review 02 – 9th August 12.00pm
• Has now focused research on ‘Anger’.
• Nalisha is not aiming to solve problems but instead to create experiential products that can be interacting with in various expressive ways.
• Document these interactions.
• How can you frame play to facilitate (cute or scary) outcomes?
• The way you interact, use or (re)contextualize an object/ frame play.
• How does an objects meaning change in relation to music, scale, medium, architecture etc…
• Also consider hybrid objects.
• Organize the experiential aspects of the existing toys and map the experiences you want to introduce in the video representation and the samples you make.
• Nalisha could delineate the experience in order to design the object and its characteristics.
Look at:
• Read Roland Barthes’ essay on toys
• Jeff Koons’ sculptures – What happens when you change scale of an everyday object?
• Class Oldenberg’s sculptures – What happens if you change the medium or material of an everyday object? How does its meaning change?
• Roald Dahl – how he uses themes related to fear/ violence etc…
• Toys inspired by Hieronymus Bosch.
• Look at Toni Morrison’s novel “Bluest Eyes.”
Outcomes:
• Product/pack – experiential object
• Illustrations
• Video – documenting of experiences. Could it also form an installation?
Next review meeting date – 23rd August
Review 03 - 23rd August 12.00pm
• Nalisha’s confusion is how to make a kit and not for it to seem to force aggression.
• Very research based yet where are the tangible results? What will you now do with these observations?
• You have lots of anecdotes but there is a worry about the vagueness of the direction of the final product.
• Allow for your premise to evolve. Maybe move away from the word anger – it is restricting you and the outcomes. Consider creating toys that are more open (tangible ‘trigger mechanisms’).
• Nalisha is targeting 4-8 year olds, Middle to upper urban classes.
• Look at material in relation to themes and concepts.
• What is the collective visual language of the series?
• Final product could be six toys and one video of children responding/ interacting with these toys
Look at:
• Various tactile toys - Stretch Armstrong/ Mr Potato Head
• Joan Huizinga - Homo Ludens
• The Synectic Trigger Mechanisms: Tools for Creative Thinking http://webspace.ringling.edu/~lfjones/cd/readings/synectics.pdf
Work plan till next meeting:
6 concepts for toys and iterations of concepts with objects (tactile/ interactive/ material elements)
Next review meeting date: 6th September, 12.00pm
Review 05 - 13th September, 11:00pm
Sanjay - expressed concerns of the quality and consistency of output so far – the toys he feels have not been interesting enough. Nalisha should look at existing popular toys on the market to understand what makes them successful.
Vasanthi – This project is conceptually driven. The toys being developed are for a gallery space rather than commercial. For that reason this is working. What Nalisha creates might not fit into the conventional notions of toys.
Matt – Outputs so far have not been of the standard that was expected. Too much talking without the substance we feel she is capable of. Still we are not seeing any drawings of characters in development.
Nalisha is to make a short film over two days with the aim of changing how we perceive toys.
How does this video fit with your wider project? - The video is to change the way people/ adults perceive and look at toys in different ways.
Who is the final output for? Is there a conflict between the workshops with kids and the end result gallery pieces - Toys are for the kids but the audience on a conceptual level are adults. Be clear about this.
Nailisha really needs to start pushing the form and kinds of material used – experiment more with these aspects. Push the boundaries of the kinds of materials used and how these can evoke certain responses. Provide much more iterations.
Speak with Anders to get his feedback on your project. Also speak with Ramesh and Ravi.
Work Plan (Till next meeting):
Start documenting the process
Make video
Experiment with shape/ texture/ material
A collection of 50 drawings of characters/ toys in development
Next review meeting: 30th September 2010
Review 07 - 8th October, 12pm
Something or the other kept stopping me from having my review. Its been a month almost. Matt was kind enough to make time during vacations. He gave me some really useful feedback.
• There’s no need for the video(interaction with existing toys). I don’t see how it fits in with the rest of your stuff. You should probably make a video like that with the toys made by you.
• Have several toys-not just 5-6 as decided earlier.
• I like your idea of having a toy mobile. So its almost an installation when it’s seen as a whole. Not static but dynamic.
• Look at lots of different kinds of material-forms, shapes, textures.
• Video:
Hidden camera approach-place the toy in a park or something, and record the interactions.
Give it to people and record interactions/reactions.
A video of the toy in different contexts.
• Do you want your research to continua at the exhibit?
• Material/textures that are closer to real work better.
• Sound/touch
• Keep it safe since its an actual toy and not an art piece.
• Have some pieces that look well crafted and some more simple and quick.
• Speak to textile students for more ideas on material.
• Speak to Avy, Vasanthi
• Look at opposites-opposite of fur(something shiny or smooth etc)
• You could think about your exhibit and work backwards.
• Meet full panel on 18th. Bring a bag full of toys!
Next Review meeting: 18th October 2010
Review 08 - 19th October, 11pm
•Nalisha is now stretching her imagination and her outputs are starting take shape.
•Nalisha is planning to create a video piece of her toys situated in various contexts with people interacting with them.
•She also plans to take before and after photos of how the toys look/ are left.
•These reactions are important for the research, but time is running out. Will you be able to do this by the submission deadline?
• The Visual language of the series needs to be refined. What are the similarities and differences between the set?
• Consider the consistency of the colour palette and materials used.
• Play more with various forms/ shapes.
• The interaction can be pushed beyond texture. Can I put my hand in the object? Can I pull things apart and arrange them in different ways?
• Work on the craftsmanship. Quality of the stitching is important.
• Can sound or smell be introduced to one or two of the toys?
• What natural smells do we find disgusting?
• Play more with the senses - Sound, colour, shape, texture, smell…
To submit
• 15 to 20 finished toys
• 1 Video of the toys being interacted with (Work in context)
