Write a critique of your partner’s midterm project based on the criteria you came up with together.
Most of our evaluation criteria were comparisons between the pre-established goals and where we actually got to, so it is hard to give feedback on those terms being so that we didn’t have, for example, an execution plan for the midterms. Still, from what I can recall from Kemi’s project, it seems to me that her process developed a lot since the first idea.
Kemi came in with a rough idea of an object that she wanted to explore, and went through a creative process on what could emerge from the interaction with that object, and what kind of people could be interested on that. Her midterm presentation was very consistent in showing that she developed onto a point of conceptual clarity and rigor in her research. She shows different experiments with both physical and digital materials, which lead to the present moment on this project.
The only thing that is still confusing for me is what is the final product. The concept is clear as to who it is for, what does it do, and even possible modalities, but not as in an idea clarity of where is this going. I feel like this exploration got to very interesting points, but maybe narrowing it down and making it more clear as to what will come out would be a good next step. How are the physical and the digital versions of this related? Is it that one controls the other, or are they different products in themselves? If they are different, who’s the target audience for which of them and how do they relate as being the same project/product?
Also, I believe that the idea of playing with the drawings is a very nice exploration point, specially making it so that is goes beyond a representation of an object in the world, and creates a new layer of expression and education through that. Again, how can that be implemented in the physical and digital, and how can that be part of the same project instead of a new one?