We took part in one of the Into The Fold event organised by Camberwell College of Art. It was an opportunity for us to meet with the creative practitioner Peter Nencini who is very inspiring for our own practice/project. In the first part of his workshop, Peter introduced his recent work such as Pressed up to the Page (interesting use of grid and found texture) and collaborative work’s The Engineer and The Artist . We find his work very interesting in both process and physical outcome as it mixes narrative with a kind of three dimensional imagery that evolves architecturally throughout the story. His presentation featured some of the following references/points, some we should definitely look at in more details:
- Froebel’s play theory (gift and occupation)
- Play in relation to learning and making
- The ABC’s of [triangle square circle]: the Bauhaus and design theory by Lupton and Miller (1991)
- Quentin Fiore, The Medium is the Massage (1967)
- Herzog & De Meuron’s Natural History
- Simon and Tom Bloor Loose Parts: Children Art Commission at the Whitechapel Gallery (2013). Project inspired from Simon Nicholson ‘Theory of Loose Parts’
- Bowyer Worldwide, The Hyperealistic Interface (2012)
Prior to his workshop, Peter asked the participants to bring black and white supports (called objunct), stands and hangers from packaging display. He seems to always keep a visual identity (color code) throughout his process which makes the project coherent and visually impactful. He described the workshop as the following:
These ‘objuncts’ will act as supports for a speculative collection of ‘adjects’, made in the workshop. The focus on a snug interfacing of form (objunct) and counterform (adject) — without thought of function — will result in will result in a morphology of muffled, gestural solids.
The objects (objuncts) were displayed on the table and participants were invited to pick one or two. There were different activities, first of all we had to draw around our objects and understand their shape/details, somehow get closer to them and more “intimate”. In the second part we used clay, plastic, cardboard, glue (…) to produce some counterform (adject) which would respond to the initial object(s). Below, object 1’s final outcome emphasises minimal details from the initial “objunct” while object 2 shows a structure that is designed to simply support and create a frame around the “objuncts” without using any glue/fixing.