Working from Jenga 1.0 from 5.0 brought out an elaborate transition in not only in the original building proposal but also personal working style. Jenga 1.0 required more deliverables that I was ever used to producing in such a quick time period, bringing out moments of searching for three different interpretations of one definition or perhaps even three different definitions of my concept word flow. With an approach set on digging deeper into what flow really meant in a physical translation of space, initial efforts traced back to old ways of working. An ending lesson on the importance of working at the right pace although process should not be sacrificed along the way resulted as lessons were learned and practices changed. Throwing in constant process, precedent research, diagramming, new lessons in drafting and model making and meeting deadlines couldn’t of been more of a kick to alter the way I originally worked. There is no such thing as a true finish to these lessons let alone the continuous altering of design approach once new characteristics are added to a project. Finding this understanding that work never truly ends but is instead set up of for fine tunings, elaborations, and incorporating new elements, although simply stated in written form, was the largest conceptual challenge faced thus far, impeding and changing the way I worked since this beginning of this semester through the lessons of each project.
Jenga 1.0 and 2.0 threw me out into a pace not only was I not used to, but in fact entirely uneasy with. Working to achieve multiple perceptions of a single concept word required spread out thinking that started to touch upon bases I did not know I could extrapolate. One could not spend hours developing and hours producing, but rather a simultaneous effort was necessary in meeting new standards all at once. Setting these conceptual boundaries and yet opening doors allowed for new ideas to spurt out in my sketchbook, but new restraints on time of which to execute these ideas posed a great challenge to my original design process. For example, in the model making stage of Jenga’s 1.0 and 2.0, I used new materials and new techniques with little time allowance for inedible failures, so I picked up the practice of planning for these important aspects to take into considerations at the beginning of a project. Drawing so much individually really put my time management practices under fire when deadlines approached and process took twice, three times even four times as long as I thought they would. The only way to accomplish both necessary sleep and required deliverables was through a faster, better planned, lenience-scheduled, time management system that was crucial to stick to in order to both finish projects, and complete them to a growing personal standard. In my design processes through Jenga’s 1.0 and 2.0 I came to the realizations of how I would alter my designing practices in order to turn my ideas into a successful reality as my learning curve steepened quickly and I caught up.
As buildings emerged and grew taller I joined a group effort, which besides the collaboration of individual concepts drew in shorter deadlines and larger deliverables. Group work started with Jenga 3.0 in which we first were asked to craft a prospectus, a document meant to outline our efforts and forthcoming plans. Illustrating these first group shared efforts is interesting when looking back to see how the writing united us at first. The team name evolution was first suggested in conversation around this document and in a way the actual document was crafted in ongoing conversation. This is the result of spending a few days spreading and connecting ideas in written form through an approach that integrated all our individual efforts together, instead of the later coming “divide and conquer” system. Keeping this conversation flowing could have been the easiest or the hardest principle of group work for the following weeks as systems of working had to be altered for new concepts and approaches to shine through, but in a group effort continuous check-ins allow for the most unified project. My initial group members, Kara Kooy and Kelly Harris brought new talents in addition to new ideas. When the initial writing was complete we extrapolated our individual strengths as listed to produce physical deliverables. As both of my team members took a different studio course the fall semester, our varied ways of working allowed lessons within ongoing learning, and instilled new skills across the board in model making, perspectives sketch-up and plan drawing execution. This mainly meant learning new computer skills and making use of new amenities like the laser cutter. Continuing on a forward thinking route allowed our voices to shine through and learn from one another. Setting a time management schedule as reinforced by other team members led us to a positive experience in bringing forth our three concepts to a cohesive whole. This first uniting of ideas set the tempo, but working in a close area of one another to allow ideas to continuously bounce off one another really helped our processes to merge together rather than have a loose binding as three different concepts. My biggest strength in Jenga 3.0 was the perspectives that I enhanced with newfound skills, as I continued my learning in completing them. As we doubled our structure in Jenga 4.0, being allowed only one deliverable forced us to narrow down the variety of deliverables presented into what we thought would communicate our project best; a four story model. Our design evolved upward while the process of maintaining a concept within the collaboration improved our group-oriented learning. I came to find one of my most important design processes is talking out ideas, and when in a group not only is this possible, but also incredibly necessary. In the preliminary designing, carrying Jenga 4.0 through conceptually brought our designs together in a tangible form cohesively as we had already set a structure of which to grow and define further. In accordance, these conceptual boundaries taught me how to diagram, led my writing, and refined how I rendered.
For Jenga 5.0 we transformed the group oriented learned into an even larger scale in adding three new members; Sharon Franzier, Dajana Nedic, and Blakeni Walls. This meant our responsibilities were more spread out and overlapping, but our design work was still merged successfully. The binding of Team Caravaggio with Team Evolution brought more team member qualifications to learn from and emphasized our design approach, as we became a graceful fit. Building a careful design as we transcended into the next stage of the Jenga series, we adapted a new setting, of which a person’s cultural literacy turns into a positive interpretation of the physical environment we built from in our aim of the big picture we wanted to accomplish. Working in large groups requires your process to step constantly from this big picture vision down to the varying smaller complexities of the project. I was able to meddle with multiple tasks now in the timeliest manner yet. Working in groups not only facilitated a communal experience for the one we were building, it brought new approaches to my own design process. I can now speak conceptually and present physical evidence of my suggestions, but it is important to make note that group work allowed for an intertwining of others strengths with my own to present the opportunity of a stronger design voice from Jenga 1.0 to 5.0.
Below: a mental scroll of new considerations, It takes two to create one.
