The objects are vessels with straws where the materiality of the glass is being allowed more ‘say’ in the form and appearance of the object than usual. Consequently the practicality is disrupted.
By making objects which are difficult to use, impractical or whose use is not obvious a dialogue is enabled.
The object can now be used to question the expectation of what we percieve the use to be:
What or who is the object for?
Further, when an object is named with a use that is apparently ill fitting, what further questions are implied? The tendency is to imagine the use in context of the dominant culture, and therefore the object insufficient, but the intention in these works is rather to imply ‘other’ and ask for an open mind to be created in consideration of what that might be.
This is of particular interest in the frame or point of view of autism for instance where an object such a a fork may have particular nuanced qualities that are not obvious to an allistic mindset.
In the same way this opens the question of colonial capture objects that are radically misunderstood due to a cultural gap.
As a result the expectations of our more commonly understood objects can be questioned and through them, in turn our general cultural habits.
This ‘rupturing’ of expectation can serve as a technique for decolonisation and reinvention, ultimately leading to the birth of something new.
These pieces both preserve and forward the principles of the craft by adopting them to create sculptural pieces of experimental dining as well as decolonisation and hybridisation of the dining experience.