And here is the challenge Jackson gave us:
To design &
construct and Ephemeral piece to intervene in the typical outcomes of a Protest
situation. A situation that has a relatively short duration of time, is
heavily charged with emotion & energy, and has the hope of creating
positive social change. So, how can we as designers create something that
inspires or invites the participants in this space to interact in totally new ways?
Or from a different perspective, how can our designs potentially keep
these spaces from devolving into simplistic violent unproductive outcomes?
This was a group assignment. I worked with my fellow foundation students Natasha Ranganath and Pallavi Paul.
Could a third party in the middle of a protest gallivant in and diffuse a bit of the tension that has built up? Suppose we take a relatively peaceful protest (non- violent) with a potentially negative outcome when the police arrive and try to dispel them.
As designers, what could we do? Create a structure that will prevent the two groups from interacting? Avoiding the conflict, in this case, would mean avoiding any chances of resolving the conflict. Create a structure that will allow for interaction? The structure in mind, could also instil wonder, temporarily dispelling thoughts of aggression, so that the tension filled moment would pass. But what of a structure that would allow for thought?
Our initial proposal was to make a wall, but one with doors to go through. We were inspired by a children’s TV show, called Takeshi’s Castle, which had a wall with several closed doors, some solid, and some flimsy enough for a participant to push through.
As designers, what could we do? Create a structure that will prevent the two groups from interacting? Avoiding the conflict, in this case, would mean avoiding any chances of resolving the conflict. Create a structure that will allow for interaction? The structure in mind, could also instil wonder, temporarily dispelling thoughts of aggression, so that the tension filled moment would pass. But what of a structure that would allow for thought?
Our initial proposal was to make a wall, but one with doors to go through. We were inspired by a children’s TV show, called Takeshi’s Castle, which had a wall with several closed doors, some solid, and some flimsy enough for a participant to push through.
The next idea we came up with was like a game – one that would need the effort of both sides in order to find a balance. Like a weighing scale, those on either side of the structure need to work together by using weights (or even finding objects around them) to balance the ‘hands’.
Our third idea was more of a statement, and is placed simply to thoughts of how protests can lead you in circles. It resembles a capstan, a vertical rotating machine used on ships, usually with several people turning it. The significance of this piece points at how both sides of a protest (protesters and police) end up churning the situation in circles, never really getting anywhere.
Eventually we decided to work further on our first idea, as our research lead us further into the realm of barriers. Looking at the size and rigidity of the structure, we thought of adding hinges to each frame, and make the wall foldable. However, there was one particular frame that we were determined to use, and could not be folded as it would jut out into the next frame.
Our final design was to put 5 frames one behind the other, the first frame facing one group, and the last facing the other group. We would like to propose that there be more than one set of these frames, so that more than two people can interact. The first two frames, and the last two frames are interactive and pose an exercise similar to that of an obstacle course. The reason that the first and fifth frame, and the second and fourth frame are the same, is because we want the participants to realize that both sides have faced similar obstacles. The two parties should be nudged to the possibility that their differences are not so vast.
Our final design was to put 5 frames one behind the other, the first frame facing one group, and the last facing the other group. We would like to propose that there be more than one set of these frames, so that more than two people can interact. The first two frames, and the last two frames are interactive and pose an exercise similar to that of an obstacle course. The reason that the first and fifth frame, and the second and fourth frame are the same, is because we want the participants to realize that both sides have faced similar obstacles. The two parties should be nudged to the possibility that their differences are not so vast.
Each frame will be slightly difficult to get into, so that both sides understand the effort needed to be taken by both to reach a compromise, to work together. Another element we incorporated in our design, was to present each participant with a mask when they enter their second frame. These masks, will be similar to each other, with the same shades painted on. However, the patterns the paint forms will be different, like two abalone shells. This is done intentionally, as to imply that while our participants should not fight, they are individuals in their own right.
We decided to use masks for the protesters. After the first door, the person would have to wear a mask placed on the side. This is based on the concept that people are more likely to listen to those who think like them, hence similar masks are worn (i.e. you tend to accept a person who is similar to you).
People need to realize that there is a need to resolve conflict. Perhaps designs like this may help both side take the first step to accepting this.